If your DM does this, you should leave
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лис 2023
- You could also talk to your DM about it, but sometimes it just isn't worth the energy.
If you want a book full of magic shops and items, check out The Seekers Guide to Enchanting Emporiums! ghostfiregaming.com/XPT3_ELEE...
Merch, Discord, the Quest-O-Nomicon, and everything else: linktr.ee/XPtoLevel3 - Розваги
If you want a book full of Magic Shops and Items, check out The Seekers Guide to Enchanting Emporiums! ghostfiregaming.com/XPT3_ELEE_2023_10_030
Thanks Garry Gygax
Oh trust me I was sold before backing even started I absolutely loved Twisted Taverns its basically the book that made me want to DM.
Why are you so good at playing a dick head you're not a professional actor you shouldn't be this convincing, what did you do to people before you became a D&D UA-camr?
Invisibility requires the attack roll be against another living creature. That DM was stupid.
I’m sorry I’ve never used kickstart before but if I back them right now do I get access right away or am I just backing the idea?
The fact it was decided the player was found, because hitting a piton is an attack, and not, "They hear you hammering a piton in a wall" is a wild leap in logic
Either way outcome is the same so it doesn't matter
Doesn't matter, in terms of the character being discovered? Yes.
Doesn't matter, in terms of the player not thinking his DM was crazy and leaving the campaign? No.
Yeah seriously 😂
@@c4cool0929yeah it’s the difference between “oh shit that makes sense I fucked up” and “why did I even take invisibility in the first place if an action that doesn’t debilitate or damage is considered an attack?”
Like I'd have given a stealth roll to try to use the climbing kit, but not break invisibility, and even then the guards are going to be more confused
I once had someone call a handshake an attack, and wanted me to roll for it. I relate to this.
I’ve felt this in real life
Personally do feel attacked when people try to shake my hand
I mean... were you threatening an Inflict Wounds handshake?
Because I've had a player do that...
Then roll for damage like a chad
That’s honestly hilarious. Would love to nat one on that roll personally
"Was your expectation that we come in here and die." That sums up quite a few DMs
In my defense: It's CoS. You're level 1 fighting animated armor and then a specter.
regarding the action surge one. the official ruling is that IT DOES allow you to cast another leveled spell. just fyi to players and GM/DM's out there
Yep , because there is no rule about not casting two leveled spells. You are just restricted to cantrips for your action if you casted a leveled spell with your bonus action. That's why Haste is specific about not being able to cast a second spell.
Like most things in 5e it's an easily confused rule thanks to the dumb bonus action spell rule. Hard to blame the GM for that one tbh
@@myname9130It's only easily confused if you don't know how to read.
In my opinion, it’s a fair rule. Imagine you have this build with what the RAW says. You could misty step yourself to a better position, hold person the enemy, and then lightning bolt them with your action surge knowing the enemy will fail. That definitely sounds unfair.
Actually you could not do that. Misty Step is a bonus action, which means you could only cast Cantrips on your turn. You could Hold Person, Action Surge, then Lightning Bolt. But Misty Step means you could not Hold Person OR Lightning Bolt on that turn.@@Jawesomness16
"No you cant eat the dice" left right after that. Truly disgusting
The nerve of some dms...
I HAD THAT HAPPEN, IT WAS SO ANNOYING
Facts left like three parties. Wasn’t my fault dm bought delicious looking amethyst dice
I’m the one who bought candy dice, lemme enjoy my shit
@@mitchellenderson7194 That's a thing?! Awesome!
You deal 7 damage to the wall. It’s dead. You killed the wall.
Walking outside a building and going “OH MY GOD HE’S DEAD”
Mimic wall!
@@MeriliremOoh, don't mind me, just making a castle out of mimic walls.
@@Jordan-kq3qw Great concept for a mimic colony
THAT WALL HAD THREE FENCES AT HOME THEY WERE TAKING CARE OF!!!
I feel some DMs forget you're telling a collective story with the players and not just trying to outwit them like an evil overlord. You're not competing
If it really were DM vs players, the rules would be different or after character creation, you can drop an adult dragon on them at start, blue lightning, sudden teleportation 5000ft in the air, dropped into an endless chasm and never seen again, jailed for life in maximum security etc.
I once had a DM with a god complex who wouldn't tell us of certain rules they were doing unless it came up IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT. We were doing a Gundam 5E campaign, and they did something no dm should ever do. They declared that certain weapons were FREE ACTIONS TO USE, because they were attatched to the mobile suit, something they didn't tell us until they did attacks with 5 different weapons in a single turn to kill one of our party members, and proceeded to go on a rant about themselves being god. I, and half the party, never went back for a session 2.
we were also a party of level 1 characters, they dropped the equivilent of a CR 12 enemy on us and called it our first boss when all we did was follow the dungeon they laid out in front of us.
On the Climbers Kit - The DM could have said "You're hammering the piton in has drawn the guards attention, and they see the Piton in the wall" as sound would draw attention. Being Invisible doesn't mean Soundless
I would say they don;t see you, but hammering makes a noise, give me a sleight of hand check. Say DC 15 they hear something from the room but don;t know where, DC20 or above, they don't hear a peep so don;t enter the room.
Below a 15 they come in the room, but as you are invisible they don't see you, but the noise negates any advantage from you being ivisble so they will roll perception flat to find you. Otherwise on 15 or above, they roll with Disadvantage.
@@brewski4758nah they roll perception they hear you hammering the piton you're on a time limit now.
The difference between a good DM and a bad DM is that a good DM owns up to bad calls. Every DM will eventually make a bad call. What you do after the call is what sets you apart from the truly bad DMs.
FACT
So true... death of the ego is what being a DM requires, you gotta be open to constructive criticism and not take it personally... because you can just change it and move on, and everyone can have fun, or you can be stubborn and confrontational and get butt hurt and freeze people out... and that second group is gonna fall apart every time.
the geese encounter
Hooooooly shit I was a bad DM the first few games I ran. Hell, I was a bad player too until I played more and learned how to encourage other people into the spotlight. I remember my first bad guy using an upcasted sleep spell to knock out the party, then one person told me they were an elf. So I had this all powerful wizard just pull a friggin blowgun out of his pocket and shoot them with drow poison.
BASED
I always think I'm a fairly trash DM. Then I watch a vid like this and sigh with relief, confident that I can still wear my "World's Okayest DM" shirt proudly.
I very much agree... it's like phew.
Yeah I stopped DMing before I did anything horrendous like this 😅
Honestly this video made me appreciate myself as a DM and I know I'm a pretty boring conservative DM.
Im proudly one of the "World's Okayest DM", because even being an OK GM is a lot of work.
I'm an experienced DM currently running a campaign and we're over 50 sessions in and I have to say, some of these seem perfectly fine to me and I don't get why it's such a big deal.
A lot of this really depends on the circumstances, and nowhere near enough of context was provided in those twitter messages.
If you were wondering if it was okay to make DC's that are above 20, then yes, it very much is, particularly at higher level when PCs in their respective strengths can get 30+ checks.
Also a nat20 doesn't mean instant success, I don't know why this is pushed into new players/media trends but nat 1 doesn't mean your rogue will kill themselves disarming a trap and nat 20 doesn't mean the tiny wizard will move a boulder.
Like sure, you'd expect in the majority of cases to at least get a hint from those coins with the nat 20 but who knows, perhaps it was the main important artifact of the quest line and nobody would be able to figure out what they were from a distance?
Context matters.
Had a DM describe a wall that needed climbing. So I told him I threw my grappling hook on the wall - success. Started climbing up - NOPE, the DM said I never told him that my rope was tied to the hook, so I was screwed. I'm like, "why the hell would anyone throw a grappling hook without rope attached? It's even listed in my inventory as 'hook & rope', one line." DM didn't care, "next time be more specific. You called it, it's done. Next." He unironically couldn't figure out why I picked up my character sheet and walked out or refused to ever come back to his game.
L dm, I like Saying "ah well you weren specific" as a joke sometimes, but like actually punishing a player for that stuff is idiotic.
Throwing a grappling hook. Strength check. Grappling the wall with the grappling hook Dex.
I hate that shit so much. Classic THAT DM bs.
Dms who never want you to roll for things they know you might roll well in because they want to 'win' against their players is the big one for me.
I had a bard whose entire build was Charisma. He was terrible at everything else (I think animal handling was -4 or something crazy), because every option or subclass I could go with to benefit Charisma, I took. He hated attacking, always wanted to talk his way out of conflict. He was a sweetheart and never had an unkind word for anyone. We encountered a merchant once and I rolled high on CHA, and she gave me a deal on an item that I later used pretty cleverly to get us out of a jam. DM decided she didn't like that.
DM started to have every new NPC hate the bard before he'd ever spoken (hated as in insult or verbally degrade him immediately, even attack him, even beat him up until knocked out despite him not fighting back). This was regardless of the city, circumstances of their meeting, etc. and it only applied to my bard, no one else in the party. After a while of this going on I started to ask if I could roll Charisma checks to see how new NPCs would perceive the bard. She said I don't get to roll for stuff like that and I couldn't roll high enough to make a difference anyway. I said well ok lemme roll just for funsies to see what it would have been. It was 30. She yelled at me and told me the only time I could roll dice ever (even for secret stuff or independent narrative stuff like to see how my character felt about something) was if she gave me permission, even if the roll wasn't counted or used for anything. She continued to never let me roll CHA in social encounters literally ever. This developed into basically constant in-game bullying (even forced me to RP familial abuse and belittled and guilted me when I asked to stop, because apparently this bard's family he didn't know existed also hate his guts enough to try to literally kill him). Needless to say, I don't talk to that DM anymore lol
How did you even put up with that dm for as long as you did?
bro.... I feel like you were a victim with a story that crazy
A lot of the stories I see on here are fairly trivial, but I accept that one in particular as a viable reason to quit the table and never return.
"you can do 1 thing" dm: "no" now you are useless
Sounds like she wasn't getting any, which makes sense, as she probably took up half the room
The one time I actually left a game because of a DM decision:
We were on Roll20 on a 2D map and fighting some creatures in a river. Some of us went into the water to fight, but the wizard stayed on the banks to shoot spells from afar. On the wizards turn he decided to cast one of his strongest spells, he only had one spell slot of that level. He used the digital tools to measure and saw that he was just withing range. He cast the spell and the DM chuckles: "You fire your spell, but you miss. You forgot to calculate that the enemy is a few feet under water and because of trigonometry your spell doesnt reach". The wizard had a 20 INT and had all his movement left. He would have been in range mathematically if he just moved like 10ft closer... The DM did not allow him to move retroactivly and made him just waste his turn and spell slot.
The part that made me quit that group was the aftermath. We the players argued with the DM that the 20 INT wizard would have known that he needs to move closer, its just hard to see on a 2D map. The DM started yelling and that was the point I decided to leave.
what the hell😭
Yeah, I think we need a little more retroactivity agency across like, any games. Especially if it makes sense either contextually, mathematically, or mechanically. Retroactivity in this case should've been allowed, end of story.
If the group had been playing with these digital tools until that point and it was only at this point the DM introduced 3D distance-measuring, that’s on them to tell everyone
Wow trigonometry? In Roll20? Where diagonal of a 5ft square is also 5ft? Where "sphere of 15ft radius" is a square with 30ft side?
Screw retroactive, the DM should have said _before_ they cast that they were out of range due to the height difference.
It feels like “a world where any nat 1 could cause wild magic” is a pretty central part of the story, and to me that merits a custom wild magic table, especially making consequences more funny than harmful at lower levels and potentially changing some effects as the party levels and are more able to tank things like random fireballs.
Wild Magic and it's consequences have been a disaster for society. But seriously Wild magic is the lowest common denominator 'Random=Funny' source of humour for basic 5e players.
Or just restrict it to actions. It's real dumb that looking around can trigger a wild magic surge.
@@Aerowind While I agree, I did start chuckling when hearing that story. Just because it's so damn stupid. I agree that it should be restricted to actions though.
That's Warhammer magic for ya.
or if you're gonna do a homebrew mechanic like that, do homebrew roleplay for it? Tell the wizard to make an arcana check 'as they feel a surge of fire welling up in their chest' persay so they have a chance to redirect it and avoid PK by rat at level 3?
It didn't make me leave the table, but it did certainly upset me greatly. If it had happened more than just the once, I may have had a serious conversation with the DM. Another PC and I were trying to locate a magic item to buy when we got to a new town, the way we usually handle it is if we're looking for something specific, we roll investigation and the DC is set based on how likely that item would be found in a shop in this location. Well my character had expertise in Investigation and I rolled something around a 30 after adding my bonus. Both magic items were of similar nature and rarity, so should have had very similar DCs, but the DM ruled that my 30 did not find what I was looking for, but that the other PC's 18 did find their item. When I asked why mine didn't work, I was told "well your bonus is super high so I just bumped up the DC a bunch to make it an even chance for both of you."
Completely ridiculous. Nullifies the point of having expertise lmao
Makes the item cursed, leading the party on a quest to find the required materials to make remove curse work. BOOM instant plothook for a sidequest!
Yeah that basically negates what the skill check is for
Why roll at all then?
How tf is that fair at all? Its like saying for example a barbarian and a mage both get bit by a AOE attack, The mage takes the normal damage but the barbarian takes extra because it has way more hp than the mage. It just nullifies whatever your character is good at
In my old club, we had a DM doing all kinds of shady stuff. Players are traumatized to this day and at least 3 players refuse to play his campains.
- In a game of C.O.P.S. (players are elite specialized cops in a distopian ultra-violent Los Angeles), he warned two players because the pilot was always speeding to go to a crime scene (understandable: they're playing cops and one player was specialized in piloting skills). Since the characters received an official blame in their administrative record, the players decided to respect the warning: next call to a crime scene, the pilot stoped to every red light and never sped once. They arrived in a shooting, the criminal had already left, and they found a little girl hidden in a garbage bin, she was wounded by two bullets. They obviously called an ambulance, but the little girl died on their hands. The DM had a little smirk when he played the paramedic NPC telling players: "If only you had arrive two minutes earlier, we could have save her."
- Same campain of C.O.P.S., one player had a strong character who decided to get really buffed, he saved his experience points for half a dozen sessions to raise his Stamina attribute (in this game, it's extremely expensive to raise your attributes, most players don't do it and raise skills instead). So his character could achieve the maximum natural Stamina score in the game, and It was allowed by the DM. Next game session, he was going to question the neighbourhood and knocked on a door and failed a perception test before knocking. He was saying "police, open u..." BANG, a shotgun tore a hole through the door and his shoulder, because the guy in this house was an accomplice ready to kill cops if necessary. The character suffered a serious wound, and was penalized by losing the Stamina point we worked so hard to obtain. The DM insisted it was a rule about wounds. A year later, when one of his former C.O.P.S. players decided to become the DM it with another group of friends, he read the rules attentively and discovered the "attribute loss after a serious wound rule" was an OPTIONAL rule, printed in a special insert with a warning "this level of realism is for hard mode only, make sure your players are cool with it". The DM ruined the progression path of a player just for the sake of it...
- I played a scholar in the Game of Thrones roleplaying game, specialized in languages, calligraphy and cryptography. We uncovered a plot to assassinate a high-born we were supposed to protect, and after tracking the assassin, we found his notebook fully encrypted with a custom code. Of course, the group wanted me to decipher it, and I get to work: one success wasn't enough to decipher the whole code, it was a prolonged test, with several successes needed over time. The evening where I finally did the final success to decipher the assassin's code, another assassin stabed me in the back and stole the notebook from me. I never had to to a perception test, no one could help me because my character was alone in his study, the DM almost killed my character so I couldn't uncover the plot, at the exact second when my character was discovering the truth. It was exactly like being killed in a cinematic during a videogame. I stoped playing any game with him for years after this.
All in all, the guy was mastering a bunch of different games and was excellent with description, so everybody tried his game sessions at least once. But he has this weird philosophy: "treat your players like trash, and they will come back for more", that made him quite toxic. Worst of all, he always had a rational ready at hand to dodge any criticism, so he never truly corrected his ways.
With another DM, after spending a whole session creating characters, I wrote a full (but very short and well-defined) background and sent it to him by email. When playing the first game session, I mentioned a very important piece of my background, and he told me, laughing: "yeah, but I lost your email". I was so infuriated by the sheer disrespect, I quit the table.
what a fucking asshole, this guy should be banned from DMing forever
My god WTF whit that dm
This is the longest UA-cam comment I've ever seen. I'm going to read it just because it feels like longer posts get ignored.
Sounds like he's treating PCs like NPCs. "At the last moment before he, or rather YOU, uncover the text, he, or I mean... uh... YOU get stabbed in the back. What a plot twist! Will you chase after the assassin?"
*group devolves into annoyed arguing*
@@andreadeluca9742 nah he's just treating his players like shit on purpose
God, the idea of "I failed so hard at looking for a rat that the energy of the universe recoiled against me and made me explode" is absolutely hilarious in the worst possible way
Edit: Incredibly important that I share my friend's read of the event. "Imagine this from the party's perspective. The wizard squints really hard, and then explodes" fdha;slkfdkha;lsdk;hl
we call that a psyker moment.
The universe decided that someone this bad at perception shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
Honestly the idea on wild magic every time you roll a 1 because of the state of the world/weave/etc is a great idea....provided it has limitations on what it can do and what can trigger it. The problem there was an awesome idea ruined by crap execution.
@@Ralathar44 Yeah, this would make LOADS of sense if the weave was so torn that all SPELLS roll a wild magic surge, but as it stands, that kinda sucks.
@@Varesmyr that's why you should wear glasses
9:58 it really sucks for the person. But the mental image of a wizard, looking at a rat and then exploding is way too funny for me.
I feel you wouldn't be able to convince that party, or that town, or anyone ever, that the rat didn't strike that young wizard down with a fireball. It's a thing of legends now.
@@OptimalMayhem The XP-to-Level-3 Wizard was polymorphed into a rat!
Not even lol
Its more like:
"Do I hear a rat?"
"Where?" [Explosion]
If it is part of the setting, then I believe everyone in that world knows exactly what happened. A lot of people spontaneously explode. What, like once for every 400 things you do? You wouldn't go a week without seeing someone burst into flames and take a room of townsfolk with him.
It is an epic failure, and Nat 1 is supposed to indicate an epic failure.
The wild magic one reminded me of a DM I used to play Pathfinder with. She LOVED "lolsorandom" bullcrap and would make stuff up just to mess with us. Our kobold ranger went down during a boss fight next to our sorcerer, who was then blinded. When he attempted to pull out his touch-range wand of healing, she didn't just force him to roll a touch attack to find the ranger, she forced him to roll a d8 to even make sure he could find the right square, as if his entire sense of direction was lost. He missed the square, Kobold died as a result.
Later on, we missed a clue that would lead us to investigate a nobleman who was doing a demon summoning, and she didn't think of how to put said information in our way again. So she just decided our entire house was poisoned. The doors? Poisoned. The chairs, poisoned. My wizard's books, poisoned. And not even simple poison, Black Lotus Extract. This stuff cost 4500 gp per dose, DC 20 Con save, did 1d6 Con damage each round. We only survived by spamming Cure Poison and bolting. We bought a bag of flour to detect invisible creatures at random from a street stall and a random inn room to retreat into to plan. Inn room was poisoned. The flour was poisoned. I don't know what her plan here was, it took an OOC screaming match with her to know what to do so we could get back on track.
And then, 1-2 sessions before the final boss, we were sailing to a lost ruin. Heard a noise in the hold. Went down, three Red Jesters in boxes pop out. No explanation as to why they were there or who they were working for. These are undead which can inflict laughter with a hit of their mace, scare you with a laugh, and were just tough customers in general. They also had the single most bullshit ability ever - they THROW THE DECK OF MANY THINGS AT YOU! You get hit with a thrown card, it's like you drew it. And that was all she'd have the jesters do. One of us got imprisoned just sessions before the end of the campaign, and she had to move the prison to be in our path in order to let us rescue him, because she didn't think about what THROWING THE DECK OF MANY THINGS AT US would do. We never finished that campaign, we dropped her after that.
Damn. I feel sorry for you and ur fellow players
I had a DM like this once and I'm pretty sure it's a carryover from old school DMing of the DM vs. the Players. Nowadays keeping your players having fun means just communicating the full information to them and then letting them decide: "Hammering the piton will make a lot of noise and break invisibility. Do you want to do that or do you want to stay hidden?"
I haven't really played much DnD, but I've played a couple campaigns. I feel like both styles could be fun. is this a personal preference kind of thing? is it common to just be one type or the other, or is the old-school way kind of frowned upon now? I feel like, _done right,_ both would be fun.
Nah. Never tell your players exactly what an action will do. You can hint that it'll be loud and may get you caught, but no DM should ever be expected to disclose all information.
@@SaveMeXenu They should if it's something that the characters IT would know and the players OT are just too dense. Roleplaying is about playing a role and that includes "knowing" information that your character would know, even if you as the player don't. A wizard who has known invisibility for a long time would know what type of action would undo invisibility. If you as the DM say "Nah I should never have to disclose information to you, you as the player didn't know a thing your character would know therefore the guards kill you" then you're just an awful DM.
@@EskChan19 but by that same logic when they do something brilliant dose the DM say "well, you probably wouldn't know that" and not let them succeed? It's not the DMs job to tell the PCs that if they stick their hand in a boiling vat of oil it might burn them . . . or if they jump off a 50-foot cliff it might result in a broken ankle. Common sense should trump all in Dungeons and Dragons. Hammering a piton close to an enemy is pretty stupid and should get a pretty stupid result, and then a laugh from the rest of the group for the blatant idiocy. Weather the DM says its broken invisibility, or the player is detected by the racket they are making, it seems inevitable and unlikely to be anything but a waste of time to argue.
@@rgthjdrtyjrtyjdrtyjr
Following the game rules though, hammering a piton into a wall will not break invisbility. It will cause noise which may alert the guards to your position and in that case sure you have nobody to blame but yourself. BUT that's not what happened here.
The climbing kit one is so bizarre because he could have just said "The guards start to stare for a few seconds as a loud hammering noise is emitted and pitons magically appear from nowhere in their wall before moving closer to investigate" but instead, the hill he chose to die on was "item interaction = attack roll"
"Wait, I did not realize my character would be hammering in pitons, of course he would not do that. I'll think of something else."
"Too late, you already rolled."
"I did not roll."
"I made it an automatic failure, because the guards heard you, before you where done."
@@schwarzerritter5724 I'd be furious.
i mean too be fair, why the hell would you be using pitons in that situation? you'd be using the rope pretty much on it's own and doing checks, pitons is just wasting time in that situation.
@@tazkol what are you doing with the rope by itself?
@@super_genius the window is literally 3 feet above his head, why can't he jump?
Every time I watch these skits, I'm sort of looking for things that I might be unintentionally doing so that I don't do them anymore. And every single time, I'm shocked at how batshit insane some people's DMs and/or players are.
Same
Same. Came here looking for mistakes made, got out with a participation award.
I do the same thing and I just think wow what are these games and why are the DMs like this?
Bro same
Exactly the same for me. But also, a lot of the time I watch some of these videos I see things that are shown as terrible but COULD be done well if used appropriately.
Like the Wild Magic thing could be really cool as a temporary storyline effect at a high level (15+) for like.. one or two sessions max.
My biggest red flag was when a dm was ruling that using cure wounds on a down person would provoke an attack from an owl bear. The justification was that since I have my hand within the owlbears attack when I heal, if I move my hand away I would be attacked if I tried to pull my hand back. BTW this was session 1 and we start at lvl 1, after we were already wounded from saving a child and unable to take a short rest because, "you just started your adventure and we are on a time crunch." After 2 more sessions, it was clear the dm just wanted to kill to TPK, and he did get what he wanted.
The idea of spells provoking attacks of opportunity isn't even that insane. But that's not how 5e is designed. If you change that you change the fundamentals of the game.
If the DM wanted spells to provoke attacks of opportunity then they should be playing Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 (I'm fairly certain they both have those rules).
@@legendsofcelestite.officia5398 we're all very impressed by your old RPG. I'm sure back in your day you had to walk uphill both ways and never received participation trophies. There's nothing wrong with enjoying "tougher" TTRPGs or games where you feel more powerful.
But everyone should be clear on what they're playing. Having spells trigger opportunity attacks breaks 5e, just as short or long rests would break 2e. If you're playing soccer and throw yourself at an opponent and drag them to the ground, you're not a tougher or better player. You're an idiot who doesn't realise they should be playing rugby.
@@8Rincewind iirc Pathfinder's rules state that only ranged attacks (spells or weapons) provoke attacks of opportunity, but its been so long since i ran that system.
@@lylaallen2123 it's also been a while since I played it. I do remember being surprised by how many things could provoke attacks of opportunity when started playing Pathfinder 1e.
Regardless I know there are systems that have similar mechanics. I've been playing World's Without Number for a while (a system that emulates some of the crunch and difficulty of old D&D). In WWN a big part of our strategy is having a load of minions, so the Spellcaster is unlikely to be targeted for attacks. This is because in WWN if a Spellcaster is damaged, they cannot cast a spell on that turn.
@@lylaallen2123 manipulate actions do too. So there's still a chance to trigger AOO even without attacking, provided the spell you try to use has that trait.
This filled me with such rage and a deep feeling of gratitude for my group's Dungeon Master. She always puts us first. She sticks to the rules religiously, but is always VERY respectful of cool roleplay choices that would induce something like a surprise round, etc. Tough but fair! I feel so bad for these other people.
Right off the bat, hammering in a piton obviously isn't an attack however it would also clearly make a lot of noise and kind of make your invisibility irrelevant
That's what I thinking. Probably what they were going for.
Silent Pitons from Pathfinder, babeeeeeeeey!
@@NinePillar speaking of pathfinder, I'm sure that was the thought process of that +2 to the attack roll. Sounded like the DM was doing circumstance bonus's, but added some weird rules for negative values.
Might hit your thumb, too 😅
They would hear the tinks but not necessarily know what it is. And they most certainly wouldn’t be able to target you.
The first example is why good communication skills are so vital to TTRPGs. I think if the GM had said "Hammering pitons into the wall will be loud, and I'll have to make perception checks for the guards", I don't think there'd be any trouble - unless the player is super unreasonable. But not saying anything and then breaking the player's invisibility is bad DMing.
shouldn't even need perception checks. It would be reasonable they just hear someone hammering pitons into a wall if their passive perception is more than -3. It won't break invisibility, but invisibility is just invisibility, it's not a free pass to be able to do anything you feel like that doesn't technically break it.
@@Person01234
*Guards looking around an seeing nobody* - "Must have been the wind."
There's a very good chance this is actually what happened but the player was salty and spun it in their favor.
@@HumblerThanYou1 Yeah sure, because it's more likely they made up some random ruling about invisibility rather than defend their position
It should be a passive perception from the guards vs.... Sleight of hand from you? Or what? Hmmm...
The "Yeah I know" at 4:49 is so perfect. Very much conveys that the DM was fed up with the players getting saved by it
-When DM railroad you and your decisions mean nothing.
-When DM puts too much weight into NPCs that just feels like he's playing by himself for you to watch how cool he is.
I played a game like this once. We were fighting some kind of demon monster that was marching towards the town. The bad guys were getting close, so the dm just had the town guard captain show up and wipe put the bad guys in one turn.
@@aidenmiller1406 And you can see in his face how he waits for you players to be like :O
@@allfenom Holy shit, this. I have two totally disparate experiences with NPC-heavy GMs, and they are imo some of the right-est and wrong-est ways to do them. Long post incoming.
Bad: NPCs around whom the entire story revolves and who are 1) prohibitively powerful statistically (both in and out of combat), 2) have narrative control over the players' agency and 3) routinely deprive them of it. Agency is a huge problem with these GMs: by having their characters be the most powerful or important or knowledgeable people in the world AND gatekeeping things the players are allowed to know or do, players end up asking "why are we doing anything when these people exist?" and never getting an answer. GMs like this will rarely pull back the curtain and show what's going on behind the scenes or in their heads, because they want to maintain a sense of mystery and try to keep players invested in these NPCs (it doesn't work). It makes the party feel like they're not accomplishing anything and like they have to kowtow to these characters to get anything done -- "nowhere" is still a place you can be railroaded to, after all, and NPCs like this are the eternal train conductors.
Good: A Suikoden-style 108 Stars Of Destiny kind of thing where we're seeking out, recruiting and compensating these NPCs. Highly specialized abilities that we tell the GM we want for the story and the GM provides -- a shopkeeper with suppliers that can get us anything, a priestess for funerals and marriages, an alchemist for mutagens who needs a place to do research, etc. They aren't always emotionally invested in our goals, but they also don't resist helping if there's a reward, and they're polite and let us do our thing while still putting up healthy boundaries. The important thing about these NPCs is they maintain player agency by being able to be affected by the players meaningfully no matter what. The GM also communicates the ways they can be affected and also pulls back the curtain and lets us know what the consequences of recruiting them are, except when it's hidden for plot reasons -- which the GM *also* pulls back the curtain to let us know.
Ultimately, these two approaches to OC-heavy campaigns hinge on communication. If a GM is good at letting you know why NPCs act a certain way and NOT letting them get in the way of players' freedom of expression, that's enough to keep players hooked on having these NPCs around. I wish more GMs understood the Confucian approach to mysteries, where the best thing you can do to keep your players interested is to listen to what your players consider important and give them pieces of it, instead of forcing them to root through mud and talk to obstinate NPCs to learn things that the GM thinks are important. Thanks for reading.
@@DetectiveGrey It's a hard balance to strike for sure. I find communication is, as always, the key. In the campaign I'm running, my players are about to run up against several factions of NPCs that are way out of their league. I clearly told them though that this arc is about introducing the power scale of the world and setting the stakes and that, just as well, their aid will shift the balance in one way or another. They may not be able to match up, but who they influence will change the trajectory of the events.
@@LunamrathP Communication is important, but *agency* is far, far more important in my opinion. You will find that it won't matter so much to the players how outta league or outta scale these NPCs are as long as player agency is preserved. Have you played Mega Man X? In Mega Man X, in the beginning of the game, Zero is introduced as an incredibly powerful NPC who rescues you -- but what is cool about Zero is that he is there to show 1) how powerful the player will eventually be, and 2) he stays outta the player's way while the player tackles all the Mavericks. I believe the best thing a GM can do with powerful NPCs is to "show the players what they can be". The unfortunate experience I had with OCs involved a GM who tried to show us this, but the plot moved too slowly for us to really believe that we would ever reach that level of political or statistical power. It was very frustrating. So, I hope your players like your NPC factions, and that they become inspired by them. It sounds like you know what you're doing; knock it outta the park!
Two rules:
1. Shared storytelling
2. root for the players
I've never found players anywhere on the internet who want to take part in telling a story or contributing to world building, even when asked. I once asked questions like: “This inn is famous/especially because of X” or “No one goes to this ruin anymore because of X.” Even then, they don't want to participate. Sure, there are people who write a backstory, but not everyone does that and those who do it expect the game master to think of the birthplace and work out the NPCs from the backstory. And some people ask me, as the game master, how they should play their character: "What should my character do now? Who should we talk to? What would my character think about this?".
So what I want to say in short: I can't imagine that there are players who will take part in the telling of a story, because my experience tells me that people would rather sit down and think: "Now let me have fun or I'm looking for a new group"
@@TheLevantin Make story decisions with your players before your session. Talk to your players about where they are headed or where they are currently (without spoiling). Or better yet, choose something from one of your player's character's backstory and make that a focal point. Bring their nemesis into the story, bring them to the location where something tragic happened in their past. It's not necessarily about your players "telling the story," as much as it is building upon what you know they've already established for their character. It gives player buy-in, prevents railroading, and promotes RP.
@TheLevantin I think it really comes down to clear communication prior to starting a campaign. You've got to make sure you and your players understand and agree upon the tone of the game you're about to play. There's nothing wrong with a dungeon crawling party of murder hobos, IF that's what everyone comes to the table wanting to play. There's also nothing wrong with a party that's narrative-focused and wants character development and in-depth world building as long as all of the players (and the DM) are on board for that. The biggest problems in my games have occurred when there's a mismatch in expectations between the DM and players. The easiest solution is to talk openly and honestly about the type of game you want to play before the campaign starts. It's also okay to set some ground rules regarding narrative-building as the DM such as "Hey, I'm glad you guys want a story-focused game, but know that I'm going to expect you to take an active role in building that narrative, and I'm not going to do your backstories etc for you"
As for players who ask "what should my character do next", that sounds like players who might be inexperienced and just genuinely don't know what they can do? I would respond with options. So rather than "you should...", you could say "well, you're in a new city: you could try to find a tavern to stay at, or go shopping, or follow up on X's grandmother who that shady NPC told you about...etc" and always conclude it with "but actually, you can do whatever you feel like! Just tell me what you *want* to do and I'll decide whether you need to roll for it or not. Mind you, if you're getting these questions from experienced players, that's a whole other kettle of fish and I wouldn't be putting up with that.@@TheLevantin
Maybe root for the players is a rule for you, but I play with a group of highly competitive power gamers so unless I actively TRY to wipe the party, everything is always incredibly non-challenging for them and we all get bored.
Yes, GMs want the party to survive encounters because the story can't continue without them, but a couple player deaths should be expected unless your players are fine just stomping everything.
@@TheLevantin Look up something called the Same Page Survey. It can save you a lot of headache.
Here's an example of my own variation of one of the prompts:
The playersʼ characters are meant to…
a) …follow the DMʼs lead to fit the story. The DM knows best.
b) …pursue the main goal of the DM's story in a way that fits with their background, alignment, and pre-existing goals and motivations.
b) …follow their own pre-existing goals and motivations; there is no pre-established story or overarching goal, or if there is then it's just there for setting and flavor.
c) …not know or care what the setting is or what our backstories are. This is fantasy Call of Duty and we're just here to slay stuff and snag loot.
If these stories were consolidated into one recurring DM character, "Powergaming Wizard" vs "Rule-Misinterpreting DM" could be a fun formula.
He already has the Wizard. Maybe Colton or Logan could cameo as the DM. I feel like Logan especially would be fun because he's got a sense of humour that fits it and could play the character almost maliciously, but Colton has a more subtle style of humour where he can just say the most ridiculous of things without any change of tone or expression and that could work too.
Rogue: Rolls a Nat 20 perception
DM: just a bunch of coins.
Wizard: ok... DISPELL MAGIC!
I had a GM that would state that if you are blinded it is impossible for you to hit an enemy or do any action, also if you are invisible you cannot be hit by any attack or take any damage. His logic is that to hit something you need to know where it is and if you can't see something then you can't know where something is, so you can't interact with it. I explained how with that logic no one has ever won a game or marco polo, blind people cannot do anything ever period, and it is impossible to turn on the lights in a dark room. For invisibility I stated how we have multiple other forms of scenes, it still will be hard to hit something but if they are making a noise, being very smelly, literally grabbing you, you can know something is near. Luckily for me, another player had the spell invisibility and showed how the GM is dumb (room is full of deadly gas, but I can't be seen so no damage. I jump off the tower, oh I am invisible so the fall does not harm me).
You really encountered someone who can’t differentiate between “invisible” and “invincible”. That’s impressive
lol for the skit with the action surge wizard, that reminds me of the first rule my college DMs told us. “Never give the DM ideas.” Part of that ruling was that if the DM makes a call and it’s to the players benefit, DONT speak up. The DM will ALWAYS take the counter call if it’s reasonable and arguable. This was to help us work together and try ti be more creative without constant rule squabbling. If someone did speak up tho we all paid the price haha 😂 “Snitches get stitches” one of the DMs said when someone accidentally challenged a player positive ruling
Somewhere in the rules it says "It's your game you can do what you want." Some GMs abuse that to the hilt.
GM's who do that are missing the point of the job. You should enjoy being the GM, but you have a responsibility to keep the players entertained, and if you can't, either work it out with them or step down. With great power comes great responsibility. Uncle Ben strikes again.
When gm is playing “against” players instead of “with” players, they are doing it wrong
There’s also GMs who follow the rules to a fault. I’d like to see them in a game together. Lawful Neutral vs Chaotic Selfish
So sad but true, D&D and just general TTRPG's usually allow for a wide range of messing with rules to fit how you want to run the game, but using that as reason to break or change base game rules that affect multiple things is just an abuse of that power and you might as well as just play a different game all together
None of these GMs seemed to be wrong. At all.
Never really a ruling making me leave but when we had a talk to our dm to fix some issues and they very casually say ""I never saw your characters as a part of my world" and that was a clear indicator for me I didnt want to stay. There were also tons of other issues but that was the eye opener to a lot of it.
"sick world dude, write a book instead of wasting our time"
Gross
No, this one is too sad. I refuse to acknowledge that I read your comment.
@@461weavileAt least not as worst as "it's a good thing, I have a better player to replace you."
@@GeneralKornwallis oh we wish we did that in retaliation, that realisation kinda came later when we discussed what was wrong or felt wrong. DM got told several times by other sources they asked for advise "dude, youre to focused on the story and the setting and not letting the players in at all" but to no avail.
Not quite left the table, but caused the largest uproar at the table. A wizard is doing a ritual, if anything disturbs him the spell is reset.... aka we are defending him. cleric tries to put a spell to shield/protect the wizard. the gm tells us that, that to also will distub the wizard, and we don't have any spell that'd last super long aka open easy to hit target, against a portal of spewing enemies who are fire based and all have flight, and/or ranged stuff.
I mean I can understand the point the dm is trying to make but then having an intense fight 30ft from you should also disturb the ritual.
7:34 You've met the rules lawyer, now introducing the *rules prosecutor*
"Uuhm, he casts a spell, and both of you are chained on a wall, and you can't move, and he beats both of you until you pass out" did it for me
That's somebody's kink, but if it's not yours, run. Run far away.
actually just in our previous session of a pretty long running campaign, an enemy casted Fear on like 4 of us and we had a bloody tough time breaking it but luckily our DM just made the enemies kinda disengage cus it woulda bene a pretty one sided beatdown otherwise. Luckily our monk I think? managed to paralyze 2 of them so we still got prisoners
@@461weavile Or even if you like that sort of thing you may still not want it in this context.
@@SimonClarkstone Consent is important.
@@ember_falls "luckily our DM just made the enemies kinda disengage"
As a forever DM I hate this. What is the point of combat if there is no risk? Like... you know he wont let you die so why even bother?
I woulda just had the fear break on the next damage the monsters did to you.
One of my friends wanted to try DMing, so he designed a one shot where we were all level 1 and explored a dungeon. The dungeon offered no rest points, with tons of encounters that theoretically a level 1 group should be able to deal with, but definitely not in a row. My character died to a minotaur in an act of noble sacrifice cause I was already so low I figured I wouldn’t make it out alive and would try to protect the other members, and they all died in the next room fighting a wivern. After the one shot my friend asked us what we could do better, but refused to hear any of our feedback about how difficult the encounters were, saying that “he already fudged so many rolls and if he hadn’t we would’ve died way earlier, we’re just bad at the game”.
As a bonus, he also loved to leave clues that were impossibly cryptic (or even purposefully misleading) that were vital to continue and would lead to catastrophe if not correctly dealt with. It was extremely unbalanced, and he would keep blaming it on our lack of skills and intelligence. I’ve stopped talking to him.
oh gOd that's so deeply uncool! good for you for not talking to that guy anymore; if someone's that bad at taking criticism when it comes to something you're doing for fun, i can't imagine they'd take it well when they actually fuck up as a person.
Sounds like a "Just write a book" DM to me, if he's that user unfriendly
He is probably like: challenge rating is just a number
Good dms fudge rules all the time, if you can’t learn to say “fuck it, that’s awesome, that’s happening” you should *definitely* just go write a book
Did we have the same DM? My guys name was Chris.... xD xD xD
The thing that caused me to leave a game and even quit playing for awhile happened in the early 2000s (I have been playing since around 1975). The dm split the group up. My boyfriend and I were left sitting in a tavern while the others went to do something else and it was supposed to be hours and hours we would be waiting. So we were still in charecter and talking as our characters. One of the other players, not the dm turned to us and said we were not allowed to continue the conversation, that we didn't exist while they were doing thier thing. Then said if we continued to have our conversation he would kill our characters off, especially mine since I was a last minute addition they didn't really want. The dm allowed him to say this without reprimnd, which spoke volumes about his feelings regarding us, (they were all supposed to be our friends). So we looked at each other, closed our players handbook, picked up our characters , my boyfriend said ok, we're dead and out of this game. When I did start playing again it was never with that group of people. No matter if I am a player or a dm, I never forget the lessons of that game.
I had a bard with a background of sailing (I like writing so I get pretty detailed about my backgrounds, and wrote about three pages bridging her sailing background to how she ended up in the fae wildes for this campaign).
A party member fell into a river from a cliff, there were rapids. I expected to have difficulty with the current because my str was low, but i go "i want to use acrobatics to dive," in hopes that a good enough acrobatics would help expedite grabbing the party member and using the momentum to reach a shore, or at least not hit my head on rocks.
The DM tells me to roll *athletics*. I ask why do i need to roll athletics first. The answer was that there were rapids and so I reminded the DM that I want to dive into the water, she has a background that involves living at sea, they go "yes, make an athletics check." I roll, its low, the dm say "You jump, land in the rushing water and hit your head. I guess you're not very good at swimming." I was ready to leave the game for good.
One of my friends was playing an aarakocra. A floating island that he was on was crashing down to the earth. He gets to the edge of the island and jumps off to fly to safety. The DM says "Your wings don't work." My friend was flustered but still asked if he could make an acrobatics check to avoid fall damage. He rolled high and had 5 HP remaining and the island crashed down away from him. The DM then says "a piece of rubble comes out of the sky and smashes into you doing 35 damage."
Wow, I've seen examples of GM arbitrariness before, but this takes the cake. That GM seemed to think that gamemastering is about randomly making things up to kill characters.
I sense he wasn't a fan of flying races
What the hell does "your wings dont work" even mean? wtf... ive heard of DMs that actually ban aarakocras from their games because they think their flying speed makes them too OP, but at least they discuss that with the group or make it clear on session zero.
@@Nero-ii2sb They were a kenku the entire time
Flying races aren’t even OP
Just make more enemies with ranged attacks that can drop speed to 0, boom, risk of fall damage, balance restored
I've been playing tabletop RPG's for a long time and off the top of my head one of the wildest rulings that I've ever been involved in was a DM who had a standing table rule that player characters never wore armor for the course of the adventuring day. His standing rule was that if more than four or five minutes passed and you weren't involved in combat, or otherwise "on guard," your character became so hot and uncomfortable in their armor that they took it off. No matter what type it was.
Even after I pointed out to him that, in the D&D 3.5E ruleset, full plate armor required several minutes to don and remove, and even longer if you didn't have help. Didn't matter, he said, his rule stands.
According to one of the other players who was friends with the guy outside the game, the source of this houserule stemmed from one time several years ago that the DM wore a homemade chainmail shirt made out of soda can tabs to a Renaissance Faire and it was very itchy and hot. Never mind that we could show him videos of people doing gymnastics wearing full plate. He had "firsthand experience," and we were wrong.
Naturally this only applied to us, the players. City guards and bandits at strongholds were apparently immune to this condition. I finally got so frustrated at the inconsistency that I had my character take a level in Binder, which is a 3.5E class that allows you to seek out otherworldy beings called vestiges and "bind" them to your soul in order to gain various minor supernatural abilties, in exchange for certain aspects of that vestige influencing your behavior (which you can roll to resist or just allow to happen). One of these vestiges was called Savnok, and his penalty for fully influencing you was that your character will never, ever willingly remove any item that increases your armor class (including armor, shields, and other magic items) for as long as you are bound to him. The look of utter disbelief and confusion on the DM's face when I pointed to this rule was glorious.
After that campaign ended, I opted not to play in his next one but kept in touch with one of the players, who told me that he banned the Binder class in his next game because it was "overpowered." 😂
As someone who has worn a thick leather chestplate for an entire weekend at LARP numerous times, I can say with some certainty that your DM was full of it. There were plenty of people there who kept their chain mail and heavier armor on at all hours they weren't asleep. No adventurer would take off all of their armor just because they didn't expect to immediately leap into combat in the next 30 seconds. You'd make damn sure things are safe and calm before you took your armor off, so you're not caught unprotected when the goblin assassins start stalking the camp.
I would have grabbed the "Endurance" feat and argued that if I find my armor comfortable enough to sleep in without incurring any negative effects then I can wear it all day without a need to remove it.
Or just go to an armorer next time I was in town and request a layer of padding for comfort.
@@jabilussAnother player had tried that argument before I joined, and the DM's response was the feat only specifies "sleeping" in armor that was the only place it applied.
The DM's reasoning apparently was that sleeping is different because you are at rest and what makes you uncomfortable is the act of being up and moving around in it.
A dip in Binder in 3.5E wasn't uncommon and could benefit a lot of character builds in different ways. It was the one surefire way I could find of specifically defeating his bonkers houserule.
@@JohnSmith-vk9ds Could also have the character be paranoid by the argument given in this video
How in the world did he not consider the inconsistency of his guards being able to march all day in this “uncomfortable” equipment, yet you can’t last more than 5 minutes. If he’s not going to be consistent, then why do this at all?
I also can’t believe he didn’t think, for a second, that a nerd who wore shitty homemade armor ONCE, might not be as accustomed to adventuring as an actual knight. Why would he assume his one experience overrides thousands of years of military history?
Had a DM literally change my class. No saves, just : you get corrupted by the grim reaper’s daughter, you are now a warlock instead of a wizard.
Wait, so they just 100% changed you from a wizard to a warlock? As though your years of studying magic just didn't exist anymore? Not having a save is shitty, but I feel like it would've at least been tolerable if it was just forced multiclassing, you know?
@@spongecakes1986 turns out, the DM didn’t like wizards. Thought they were OP. So he found every way possible to nerf me. I was lvl 11, but since every spell had to be learned in game and he kept finding reasons why I couldn’t read my book “wagon was too shaky, it’s too dark, etc” I was stuck with lvl 2 spells. My strongest attack was pretty much witch bolt. So yeah, should’ve noped outta there wayyy before the class change, which apparently was because he got fed up that I didn’t give up on being a wizard. And even after, he did some terrible things to my character.
@@nicolasdorion5284 damn. Also, since when are wizards OP? Aren't they notoriously easy to kill because of their low hit dice? In my longest running campaign (not a big accomplishment, but still the first campaign I've actually leveled up in) the only people in the group who've been downed are our two wizards (funny thing, they both picked types of elves, and both picked the same name, and even the same level one spells completely independently) and me, a paladin, but only after all our healing was gone. Sorry this is kinda long, but I'm also curious as to what else he did to your character, if you're okay sharing
@@spongecakes1986 Well since you asked, he thought wizards were op because of the high level combos they could pull off, which we were never NEAR that level. Also, in terms of horrible things, my character was a geek about fire magic, wishing to learn as many fire spells as he could. So the DM had us meet the God of fire’s son. My character obviously freaked out and asked him many questions, to which he was promptly blown up. I believe I took 367 damage. Then, I was immediately brought back to life, but without ANY equipement. We didn’t even have time to go restock (we were in an army and HAD to move on). The worst to me was that I was a Tabaxi. In his campaign, Tabaxi had a heat cycle. We had to go through a desert and got ambushed by a tribe of female Tabaxi slavers who put a collar on me round 1 (no saves) which made my character go unconscious, then they dimension doored me away. My character was then… R worded… and according to the DM, liked it, since he was biologically horny at the time…
@@spongecakes1986 Hoo boy, so basically, he thought their lvl 20 combos of spells were broken, so he did not like wizards. I always stood behind the paladin because… well paladin. (Also, he had a weird thing where good aligned paladins where supposed to always sacrifice themselves, like literally if you don’t throw yourself in front of an attack, you could lose your god’s favour??) When it comes to the bad stuff, well, at some point, we cross paths with the Son of the Fire god. My character was ecstatic since he loved fire magic, his greatest wish to learn every fire spell, so went up to the Demi-God and, basically like an adhd kid with no adderal, started asking him a bunch of questions. The Demi-God said nothing, blew my character up (I believe I took around 345 dmg as a lvl 5) and then revive him immediately. This destroyed all my magic items, gear, spell components, etc. Only my staff remained. We didn’t have time to restock (we were part of an army and had to move on) so I went through an entire dungeon like that. The actual worse time however was when we went to the desert. So my wizard was a male Tabaxi and in his universe, Tabaxi have a heat cycle. We were ambushed in the desert by a group of female Tabaxi slavers who put a collar on me (no saves) which made me go unconscious (no saves) then dimension doored me away. My character was then R worded for an entire day, apparently liking it due to this being his mating season…
I like how the wild magic and advantage overhaul ones weren't really malicious, but just severe oversights in the game design.
"My feet are attacking the ground," is my new favorite way to describe jogging. 😂
Roll for damage. A 1? Roll d100. A 7? Congratulations, you have successfully launched a fireball at yourself, and now you are dead.
"ooooh... well since you are not a Monk with furry of blows or a Fighter with action surge you only get one attack and there for one step. BUT, if you are wearing two shoes you could take a step with your bonus action!"
The whole planet is a giant Mimic!!! The Armor Class of this colossal creature is 24... You fail the attack roll.... so you somehow fail in standing Up!
@@user-qz6nk1le5n this is how wingless flight is invented.
Now back to the age old question:
Do you have advantage to walk, because the ground is prone?
To be fair to "Climbing Kit breaks invis" DM, you could instead rule that the noise made while hammering pitons into the wall attracts significant guard presence to the area over outright making them lose invisibility. If you've ever heard people using those, they're definitely not silent.
I really don't like how he framed it as "tippy taps" and compared it to walking. You are striking it with substantial force. Whether or not it's an attack is just semantics on intent at that point, hardly ridiculous, especially since stealth is ruined anyways.
Iirc, raw, the guards would have an easy time rolling perception to find their location making them possibly no longer hidden but still invisible with all the benefits that entails. Loud noise making does not actually break invisibility - like hearing a creature's footsteps wouldn't make it visible even if no longer hidden for the round
the thing is, just ask for a stealth check. it doesnt break invis, but it can certainly be heard. that would fairly explain whether the player can do it quietly or be caught
It would take the guards longer. Even if you hear where it is coming from you would first walk around to track it and when you hear it coming from the wall, my first thought would be to go inside and check what is making the noise. Unless a good perception check makes them see the tiny holes made in the wall.
Still, that's something you tell the player BEFORE you confirm the action.
"You're not gonna be able to climb down without hammering a piton in, which will make some noise. You sure you want to try?" is one hundred percent reasonable.
"I try to climb down" "The guards immediately rush to the sound of you hammering a piton into solid rock," is total bullshit.
In Pathfinder, a big gimmick Cavaliers (my absolute favorite class and by far the most played) can do with the right feat is basically the rider and mount can take hits for each other. This allows you to spread out damage between your two HP pools to tank for a while as a front liner. This involves doing attack rolls higher than the enemy's to get in the way of their attack.
Many DM's have a STRONG preference for whether they want to attack mostly (or only) your character or their mount, and do not like this feat. The end result is I've actually experienced times where enemies have gimmicks (or just super high attack rolls that never miss and can't be beat) to disallow this.
Naturally, removing such a critical feature to the cavalier has resulted in my character dying pretty much every time this happens the first time a critical hit rolls out, because I've been eating damage the whole time up front and cannot sustain hits the way a Barbarian can.
RIP me =(
Yeah I got the fuck outta dodge as soon as I realized what was going on.
DM's. Please. Just talk to your players if there's something they're doing which you don't like. Don't just screw them over to feel better about how hard things are. This is not a versus environment. We are experiencing your story by being a part of it. Just. F*cking. Talk to us.
"Was your expectation for us to come in here and die?" 🤣
in one of the first dnd campaigns I played in, the DM insisted you can't move between attacks during action and bonus action, no matter how much we quoted the rules. Piled a bunch (like 30) of 3hp rats on us in a crammed space that died from one attack and then we couldn't make the other with the bonus because we'd have to move. we couldn't even move to give somebody else space. we were level 3 with only 1 caster and quickly ran out of aoe spells, and the rats kept coming. The battle took hours and was incredibly boring and repetitive. Finally, the boss who was left on 1hp, ran into a cavern and we weren't allowed to follow without any explanations. Just 'no, you can't go in there'. After the sessin, giving feedback, we were all together trying to explain the problem and the DM just ragequit.
I think it was in 1st or 3rd edition, that it was an actual rule. That you had to action-bonus action-move or move-action-bonus action. I might be wrong on the specifics, but it was something like that, if not just something similar.
@@Dumledaj this DM was obviously too young to have played at that time :) and anyway, it was a different game with different mechanics. Idk, maybe it made sense.
@@Dumledaj In 3.5e there were no bonus actions only free actions/swift actions but what you say is true. In order to attack move and attack again you'd need the spring attack feat.
Sounds like a case of the rules being used as is when you were used to home rules. I ran into this alot in Magic the Gathering.
@@lanceknightmare This isn't at all rules-as-written in 5e.
To be fair, invisibility does not block sound. And the guards would have noticed the tapping sound. Wouldn't have made him turn visible but absolutely would have rolled a perception vs stealth (sound) check
Yeah but that's not what the DM did.
And another to be fair: The dragon could for sure manage to react before the circlet lands on the party's head. It happens right in front of it and it's already intensely prepared for the possibility of combat
But once again the DM is out of line when they then both say "Your action doesn't trigger until your turn" AND "You already used your action before your turn so you get no action on your turn"
And another tbf: Sometimes a DM asks for a roll, you roll a Nat20 and you still fail because the DC is still too difficult for you. Still, why ask for the roll then? Well, a couple of possibilities. The obvious one is that the DM doesn't know/remember your bonus. Ideally they'd ask for your bonus first then, but there's another reason to call for the roll: You want the chance of avoiding the meta knowledge that there's a high DC on the coins. If you roll an 8 and gleam nothing, your meta brain might just think the roll was low, but that doesn't guarantee anything extrordinary. If you roll a 21 and are lead to believe a higher roll might've resulted in information, then your meta brain knows it's something big. I also think it's fair for a DM to essentially put a DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON! (and the entire setup with the word greed clearly spelled out and all is exactly that) encounter in front of the party and it is then up to the party if they can contain themselves.
@@oOPPHOo Actually dragons typically have really low Dex scores, especially the more powerful ones, since they are so big. Also that "he knew you were gonna do that" excuse is actually covered in the book. You're supposed to roll a Deception vs Insight, to see if you get a surprise round.
As for the coins and the nat 20, there is a simple solution. If, for some reason, it was a DC 25 trap, and this was a campaign full of such utter BS, then you can still provide the player with FAR more information than what was given with a 21, even if they don't uncover the trap itself.
@@ethanwilliams1880 DEX is not really relevant. A dragon with strangers (strangers who look like looters come to take its hoard) in its lair is on guard. There is surely no debate regarding this. The "DEX contest" is the Initiative roll itself. Should the rogue get to use the circlet first? Sure, given a skill check was used to do that, but it's hard to argue that the dragon was so incredibly taken off-guard that he should do nothing for 6 whole seconds. And it's also hard to argue that, barring a special class ability or something like Haste, that the Rogue gets to immediately act again. In the face of conflict, we compromise; the Rogue goes first, but gets no additional actions.
Interestingly enough, the player admitted that "this is probably RAW" and the recently released Baldur's Gate 3 handles actions exactly in the same way. If you don't surprise them, you go first, but you don't get your action when your turn for that round comes up. There's a whole Rogue subclass (Assassin) which gets the special ability to act again in round 1, and it's extremely powerful. It comes off making the player look _extremely_ fragile for leaving the table over a single action in a single combat, which he admits is "probably RAW" anyway, simply because it didn't have _quite_ as much cool factor as he wanted.
@@CrizzyEyes Homie did you just stop reading after my first sentence or what? Also BG 3 is hardly a good litmus test for which rules are RAW.
That Wild Magic rule implementation is nuts.
~_~
I had a DM who tried to rape my character with one of his NPC's because I gave the bartender 10 platinum coins "for all foreseeable future expenditures". My logic being that 1000 gold would give us a few semi permanent rooms, as well as first rights to all the information the tavernkeep happened to come across. I happened to be playing a bitchy, but extremely talented and beautiful elvish diva style bard at the time (since charisma doesn't always equate to likeability).
His exact words were "You just don't drop 1000g and expect people to not take it the wrong way". I can not express enough how uncomfortable this made me, and I could not convince him to stop and it took an outsider (We were playing in a public place) to say that it was deeply inappropriate and needed to be dialed way the fuck down. I wanted to do romance with this character at some point, do some character growth where she became less prima donna and more personable but I had to very quickly scrap that.
I never left that party when I should and it only stopped when the group eventually dissolved on its own. Please, don't be like me. This isnt a situation you should try and talk out with your DM. The most you should do is tell them that its inexcusable behaviour, and then leave. I'm not even an SA survivor, imagine if you are how traumatic that would be. Fuck that guy.
I’m a male SA survivor and I can’t tell you how many guys have mocked me for being uncomfortable with those themes or tell me I’m being dramatic over “getting lucky”.
Never had that problem with a female player, but it’s lonely as hell not being able to have guy friends who don’t make those kinds of jokes.
I am so sorry that happened to you. No one deserves that.
Disregarding the fact that the sensitive subject matter makes it even worse, to put it lightly, thats just straight up bad dming.
Letting a player run into a mistake and have "consequences" they clearly didnt want instead of claryfing what their Intentions were.
This is like If your wizard casts fireball but forgets it does aoe damage so instead of telling him "dude the the guy is right Infront of you, your fireball will hit all of you" you just tpk them because they "should have seen it coming". And in this context its just straight up victim blaming.
I like the way the DMG handles critical skill checks. It doesn't say 1s auto fail or 20s auto succeed. It says "take into account exceptional rolls." In the case of the rogue, since I know they're a rogue and probably arent adept at detecting magical traps, I would have told them something along the lines of "you notice the gold shimmers in an unusual way in the light. You know how gold shimmers, you love gold, and that gold aint right."
I would take it a different way. They failed the perception check, so they don’t notice anything about the gold, but a large empty room with nothing in it but a bag of gold on a pedestal? You don’t know if it’s a trap, an altar, or a puzzle, but this bag of coins is special. You just can’t see anything special about them
Nat 20s are always relative. Consider the following encounter:
Player: I demand the King relinquish his throne to me and give him his Kingdom.
DM: okay, roll.
Player: Nat 20
DM: the king laughs and says 'good joke, I should make you my jester'
Player: but but but Nat 20!!
DM: yes, the Nat 20 is why he is laughing it off instead of executing you on the spot.
"...they're a rogue and probably not adept at detecting magical traps..." I know this isn't an unreasonable take by any means, but I can't help but think that holding certain classes to a more realistic standard really contributes to the martial-caster disparity. For example, a locksmith in a world where magic is common would recognize and have tools to deal with magical locks, no?
Love that, that's so smart!!!
I also like to remind storytellers of this:
Skill have multiple levers of success.
Take, for example, the good old Knowledge Checks in editions gone by... as they literally explain this phenomenon. Just because the character can not make the insane checks on some of them, I have seen DC:40's in low level campaigns before, doesn't mean they can't get... something... back from them. That lowly result of 10 can give the character some insight into the situation, even if it is nothing more then 'man, that statue has to be twenty thousand years old or something... that had to be of someone important and worth documenting.'
These remind me of the time when we were infiltrating a bandit’s cave and came to a sheer wall we needed to climb. Our party looked around to see what we could see (perception), and the DM told us about how tall it was, the texture of the rock, etc. When our rogue tried to climb it, a saw blade came out of the wall and cut him up. The DM then told us that there had been bloodstains all over the wall the whole time. When we asked why he didn’t tell us until now, he said, with a smile, “Well, you guys never asked!”
oh that's INFURIATING, YOU LITERALLY ASKED just not specifically "hey are there bloodstains perchance??" that's SO MEAN! i truly do not understand DMs who just have it out for their players like that, like who gets satisfaction from "winning" when they have unlimited power anyways? it's like a kid on the playground saying "NO, actually YOU'RE dead" when they lose.
@@plushdragonteddyYeah, that’s exactly the kind of vibe I got from that DM. I left his game after the second time he did something like that. (We “never asked” if there was a gate to the fence we were trying to get through)
It was a shame, though, because his world and setting was one of the coolest ones I’ve ever seen in a TTRPG.
@QuintonCenter That also sounds like the sorta game that becomes grindingly slow and even annoying for the DM if you wanna play “effectively“ where whenever you encounter ANYTHING you spend the next 30 minutes asking: “Do I see blood? Do I see acid? Do I see fire? Is there a gas cloud?” etc. though I would assume (and sincerely hope) that that’d be a wake-up call for the DM.
Oh I would have malicious complianced the hell out of him and ground that game to a halt out of spite. Every room would be "Do I see blood on the floor? What about mud? Dust? Hair? Fabric fibers? Flecks of gold? Pixie dust? Droplets of water? Wood Chips?..."
@@jamesmcdonald9313 pull up a copy of an enemy list and ask "is there an awakened shrub? Is there a baboon? is there a badger? is there a bat?" and just continue
That opening rant about the climbing gear was such a mood
We had a DM that was a bit adversarial and made some questionable rulings previously. But the moment that made the whole table quit the campaign was a little custom instance he had made. He was running Descent into Avernus and we were on our way to Candlekeep. We stopped at a butcher/restaurant for some reason (DM railroading) and made our orders. It was pretty clear this place was weird and out of character we knew this was probably some cult stuff and that all the meat was human of some kind. But our characters had no idea and we ate the food. The DM then made us make Con saves, which we all failed. Our characters proceeded to continually vomit without any follow up saves and I believe we were also attacked while we were vomiting. If I recall it wasn't being poisoned, it was more like a broken version of Tasha's Hideous Laughter but grosser. What made it even weirder was that this was supposedly a high class restaurant and lots of people were present and eating, but we were the only ones having an ill effect from the food. After everything else the DM pulled followed by this stunt, we were all just done.
I was playing a Pathfinder campaign and started seeing red flags from the dm right from the start. He seemed to have this "me versus the players" attitude. I (very narrowly) rolled high enough to persuade a shop keeper to lower his price on a ring of feather fall enough for me to be able to afford it. He would huff and roll his eyes and grumble every time I used it. One session, after using it to get around a trap earlier on in a dungeon (which annoyed him), we encountered a room with a reverse gravity trap and spikes on the ceiling. He started licking his lips and setting up to roll the damage for all of us (two party members were low hp and he always seemed to actively want to kill PCs). When I stopped him to ask for clarification that we weren't being pulled towards the ceiling but that (per the spell description) we were falling towards the ceiling (and that the ceiling was 25 feet above us), he practically jumped over the table. His response was: "look, I don't care. you're taking the damage." One of the other players was my ride or I would have packed up and walked out on the spot. Instead I mentally checked out, phoned it in for the rest of the session, and told the group at the end of the evening that I wouldn't be returning.
Oh no, your fall trap doesn't work? Boo womp.
If this was a lich's lair, he could just put a glyph with dispel magic for if someone casts feather fall, and then reduce the damage those who have feather fall cast on themselves take slightly reduced damage.
Why didn't the glyph have counterspell, instead of dispel, magic you may ask? Because the ring of feather fall exists, a lich would definitely plan for that.
In short, that DM was probably salty he couldn't think of a trap that wasn't a variation of "pit trap"
It baffles me someone could get so mad about an item they didn't have to put in the game. Like if you don't want your players to use a ring of feather fall, don't give them the option to buy it? It's a magic item, it can just not be there.
@@a.t3415
It typically happens to newer DMs, that they don't imagine the consequences of their actions. From the other side... I had a group of friends over for a test campaign as I was designing my own system. Every now and then I would realize that some rules just didn't work or something was completely out of balance. In a way it's ok if your character has a signature pattern in combat(or in situation of potential conflict), but if that pattern just works everytime no matter the circumstances I try to throw at you, that's suspect. So I had to go and change some rules and some numbers and boi oh boi were those talks tough. And mind you this was all in a situation, where my players were reasonable people, longtime friends, adults AND have agreed before the campaign started that things like that may happen( it was explicitly stated that rules(abilities etc.) and characters (numbers, leveling speed) may get nerfed as I will want to "finetune" the rules. People don't like it when you take away their toys and that goes both ways - DMs and players.
I've even seen DMs with childish, angry reactions like the ones depicted in the video, who when the situation passed profusely apologized for their behavior and were able to have a healthy adult discussion about the whole thing.
Yeah I've had the "DM vs Players" DM before and it's best to just ditch those games right away. I mean when basically the God of that world can do anything and wants to ensure he wins there is no point in playing.
For example had a DM send a group of Frost Giants at us and thus we used several of our fire damaging abilities only to find the fight was extremely tough and nearly wiped us. When pressed on the matter the DM admitted our attacks were doing almost no damage which is why the fight took so long and we should have "figured it out" as he gave the FROST Giants resistance to fire and weakness to cold... During the fight he played it like a robot simply listening to our damage rolls, nodding, and then ask for next players actions. No indications that our fire attacks were not very effective and no indication on the Health levels of the Giants as him simply stated, "Ok this ones dead" and removes it from the table.
His "defense" for this was that he hates meta gaming and how players memorize the Monster Manual so they know all the monsters weaknesses. It's like first off your characters live in this world and just like we know about fictional creatures of werewolves, vampires, and etcs weaknesses this would be even more true of people who live in a world where these things are REAL. But second and more importantly it's NOT Metagaming to think a creature that lives in a cold climate is probably adapted to that climate and thus wouldn't be as effected by cold, but also they might not handle extreme heat that well. That's just common sense and basic physics.
@@JAMBUILDER08 Aye. Good thing I have a copy of Grimtooths traps, and a malicious creativity to help avoid that...
it doesn't count as making an attack but the noise of hammering something and see a dent in a wall getting bigger surely attracts attention...
See actual pedantic reality is what makes magic systems fun. “No because no” is nothing. But “no because ur fucking loud” is real as hell
Could be a stealth check to see if the guards notice it. It's not like they are going around 100% quiet themselves constantly on the lookout with ears peeled in case there is an invisible adventurer around THIS time on the patrol.
It’s such a simple fix too.
I don’t understand how a dm could think that it’s an attack roll before just doing the more obvious call that guards would probably notice the noice and changing wall
All you gotta do is make it work like stealth camo in Metal Gear where you can be seen if you do any rough movements, so subtle stuff wouldn't cancel out fucking invisibility. So many easier ways to rule this stuff I swear.
I mean, to be fair, I'm not sure how much magic would discriminate against hammering in a piton and swinging a hammer at a guys face. You could argue that that the latter takes a lot more energy but I still don't fully understand why/how in universe invisibility would stop after an attack specifically, how does it tell the difference?
Tbf the fireball rat one seems like a pre-established campaign gimmick with a comically unlucky result instead of an incompetent dm. Funny as hell though
5:12 - I like how you're wearing an adult red dragon on your shirt as well
One DM ruled that if you feed an unconscious person a healing potion there is a 50% chance they drown and die instantly. Everybody from that group thought it was a real rule, and so when I encountered them in different groups, and they tried to enforce that shit, I had the thankless task of deprogramming them.
"and die instantly"
Not even a save vs death? Lmfao. Some DMs are absolutely braindead.
Imo thats an interesting mechanic but a flat 50% of death is just crazy.
Tell me you had a power-hungry murder dm without telling me you had a power-hungry murder dm
If they were playing a hyper realistic game I can see the logic. They're unconscious so you have to be careful when pouring something down someone's throat. However, it's a game first. EVEN STILL, something like that would still require a check. Maybe a dex check to make sure you don't drown someone.
Welcome to Oral Tradition, we have to accept the errors it causes.
Even when they lead to a character drowning on the stupidity.
Okay, that is two puns, so I will see myself to hell now....
Against popular Opinion, I was playing a Whip wielding Rogue. I used my Crossbow primarily, waiting for an opportunity to use the Whip when my damage contribution would matter least. When the moment finally arrived, it was persuaded by my party. Collectively, they were waiting for me to use the Whip also. I was reluctant at that particular moment, but I did it. I rolled a Nat 20 to hit. DM said roll the Damage, and after I did, he began to explain how I missed the target. Instead, the Whip snap back, and I hit myself. Critical. I was already hurt, and thus, I actually killed myself with that hit. I left shortly after. I never got over it. DM said nobody can be that proficient with a whip, and that was the price I paid for using a Whip instead of a Dagger at his table. /shrugs
What a shit DM, a lot of trash dms in the stories of this video, but this one makes me upset as a DM myself.
Good that you leave, sounds like a DM that only wants players to fullfill a powerfantasy or something. Maybe not but It feels like it
"nobody can be that proficient with a whip" while the weapon is literally on the weapon table classified as a martial weapon, so every fighter, paladin, ranger (and more) are fully proficient with it, wtf
On a side note, rogues aren't naturally proficient with the whip, but not having a proficiency most certainly do not cause you to damage yourself, it just makes it so you don't add your proficiency to the attack roll (and you can't sneak attack with it), but a nat20 is a hit (and most likely a crit) regardless. Guess the DM thought they were being very smug about it
A quick search shows that nobody can be proficient with a whip, indeed: ua-cam.com/video/TjC1EAtDAv8/v-deo.htmlsi=Z43w9FSeFyv27Okg
that is so petty of them... and factually wrong.
that's... not the rule. There is an actual rule for not being proficient with weapons, and it's you don't add you proficiency bonus to attacks.
And idk why they would just let you be proficient, rogues aren't very strong anyways
I learned a lot as an early dm. Please don’t try and set up a cool story by doing your players for what to do. Even if you both agree it’d be super bad ass. Trust me it makes everything streamlined.
Sure when you look back you can be able to look back at a cool story. And yes it’s collaborative story telling. But over doing it breaks the fun of the game.
Another thing was putting pressure on a player who was leading the party. I didn’t know he didn’t want to be the party leader. He never told me he felt uncomfortable. So towards the end he was unhappy and left. I know now to give them grace and relax and not be overly hyped up. As a dm we have to share our stories secrets and I have to many story secrets away. It hurt me in the long run.
But we all decided to have me as the first dm to test the waters and see what we liked and didn’t like. 3 more sessions tell the end of a 3 year campaign.
Also DONT RUN CURSE OF STRAHD AS YOUR FIRST CAMPAIGN!!! it’s depressing and gloomy
The curse of strahd story was so amazing, and looking back as a group we did the best we could. I’m extremely proud of my brothers and my friends for everything we’ve told up to this point.
It was a self learning experience and drastic change on how I deal with others.
I wasn’t bad as a dm and I’m nitpicking. But keep in mind, majority of the time it’s just a game not a story.
new here, i see you have WONDERWALL prepped and ready to go behind you. i appreciate that kind of preparedness. sub earned
"As you say no, you say yes"
Nice callback!
"You're five guys!?!?!?"
I feel like the wild magic one could be fun in an environment charged with chaotic magic. Or a cursed item’s downside. Just not the entire game’s default rule
It could work if it was more limited in scope; have it be on nat-1s for skill or spell-based attacks or action checks rather than on every ability or skill check. It's still going to cause chaos, but merely _opening one's ears_ to listen for a noise wouldn't risk spontaneously detonating oneself
The only situation where I see it making sense as a global rule is if it only applies to crit fails that actually involve magic. Casting a spell? Sure. Using a magical item or ability? Makes sense to me. Physically interacting with a magical item or object on the map? I can see it. But it doesn't make sense to turn blue because you stubbed your toe or turn into a plant pot because you couldn't remember a historical fact
Actually there IS something like that, in Tasha's ! And afaik it's uh...less "possible instant death" i'd say
There's one part in Strixhaven that's temporarily that which is pretty fun.
A character and an NPC were about to face off in a duel and then the NPC just fucking turned into a plant lol
it could be cool if it was introduced because of a story element once the players had reached a suitably high level. Although you'd probably want to add more restrictions than just every roll ever since it just doesn't make sense in a world perspective. Are average citizens somehow immune from triggering these wild magic surges even though non-magical player characters can? But having it be in effect from level 3 ever ignoring those world continuity issues is just asking for a tpk.
I love this style of video. A collection of short ditties with the inspiration tweet at the end
Its been a real treat watching you grow up on youtube!
From the "Casting Time" section of the Sage Advice Compendium, p. 12:
If you cast a spell, such as healing word, with a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but that other spell must be a cantrip. Keep in mind that this particular limit is specific to spells that use a bonus action. For instance, if you cast a second spell using Action Surge, you aren’t limited to casting a cantrip with it.
And the example in that video is precisely why simplifying it as "one leveled spell per turn" as most people do is wrong. Sure it's close enough most of the time, but there are situations where it's not. Action Surge is somewhat rarer (mostly multiclassing, as an Eldritch Knight will often prefer to do something else with their surge than casting twice), but one that can come up more often is using a Reaction spell, like Shield to protect yourself from an AoO or Counterspell against someone attempting to Counterspell your main spell.
Just for clarity's sake, this is actually on Page 15 of the SAC! Just in case someone is looking it up and can't find it on 12 like I couldn't. :)
Link provided to the PDF as well: media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
My DM does it that : if you cast a spell on your action and want to bonus action another, or vice Versa, only one of them can be above level 2. I think it’s fine this way : as it makes sense that there’s only so much time for verbal and somatic components so doing a lower level bonus action or action takes less time than a full level one. That’s for non action surge, action surge you’re free to do 2 action spells with no restrictions.
ha yeas every fighter is a better wizard is stupid how yeah i just cast 5th level hold person action surge ho no 6th level fire ball and an enitre high level party dead@@seb8523
I was going to comment that the DM not allowing 2 levels spells was right but this comment completely proved me wrong. I didn't know the rule specified bonus action spells.
"The invisibility spell you studied was written by a wizard who wrote faulty spells. Little known lore."
Every horror dm story is a "don't" book for new dm's
Thanks for the DMing tips, I will start using all of these rules and judgement calls in my future games....
We finished creating our characters on session zero, and at the end the DM said "Now everybody roll for your alignments." He said it prevented everyone from playing murder hobos, but made made my Lliira cleric lawful evil.
that's insane. It's players who are murderhobos, not characters. If the player is like this, the alignment won't stop them. And randomising such crucial things as class, race, alignment, order of stats, etc is taking away players' agency in the worst form.
@@Yutah1981 It can be fun as well though. Having some kinds of random traits that you have to roleplay around can make the game more fun.
@@NN-cr6gx if you're lucky with what you've got and you're a good actor who loves such things. and it's not 'traits', it's the whole direction and mood of the game.
If you wanted to be good and save people and instead got chaotic evil murderhobos, it's horrible. Maybe it's ok for one shot, but not a whole campaign.
also, playing a mixed party of good and evil characters is horrible in 99% cases. And honestly, I believe playing (with) evil characters is only ok in very specific groups where you know each other very well.
I wouldn't want to play that.
So what prevented you from making her a murder hobo who kept on finding some law the NPCs were breaking that in your eyes allowed you to kill them in punishment? Especially as you rolled evil that should be within the boundaries of what you were rolling.
And that is also one of my many reasons for not using the alignment system in D&D
if everything else was random aswell, sure i guess that would be fun but only allignment?@@NN-cr6gx
I love how even the skits are immersive. Like "can i borrow a dice." It shows what a good DM he must be
I had that first one happen with stealth. I stealthed, then when I moved he was like "so the kobolds see you".
That after repeatedly making it clear that he wasn't interested in anything other than killing the player characters
This was my first video of yours and I gotta say, I really enjoyed it. Especially the rogue on the last one. I've sub'd and left a like, now I'm off to binge watch some more. Cheers and happy new year mate.
For the first one I could see the DM asking you to make a stealth role since hammering the pitons into the wall would make a loud noise but that should not break invisibility.
Yeah, I agree with the intent of the GM's ruling, but not the explanation.
Yeah that's what I thought. Invisibility does allow you to still be heard, and hitting a piton into the wall ain't quiet. Stealth roll for me, unless the guards were like 30+ feet away
@@themaninthechair4338 I would even say if the guards are within 30 ft, no stealth roll could be quiet enough to conceal hammering a piton into a stone wall
My call would be that you're still invisible but they hear it. They basically know where you aare but have disadvantage if they vome at you.
@@factsabouturmum9250 I would argue that they know direction. If you heard a hammer strike from behind you down the hall, you don't know exactly where. Especially if it was a single swing. it can be harder to place exact sound if it echos especially when you don't see the source of sound
Had a DM who gave one of the BBEG's main underbosses "Multiattack"... only it wasn't. He had multiple *actions.* He gave this enemy six actions. So even though I dashed and Misty Stepped to get 150 feet away from the enemy, he "just so happened" to have six actions (which he hadn't actually used before that at any point in the fight), so he could dash three times, attack me three times, and do triple my HP in damage. Oh, and he could cast Haste on himself at will, apparently, because even with his 30-foot movement speed, three dashes was enough to cover 150 feet.
It was the second-to-last session of the campaign, and totally broke every bit of interest I had to play in that game.
Damn, I had a boss who was meant to be super intimidating because he has 3 actions. And it was a highly anticipated one, the party loved it.
While i agree that that is HORRIBLE, Three dash actions mean he would have 240 ft movement right? Since they stack and each doubles the movement?
That is perhaps the worst designed enemy I have ever heard of
See the big difference there is *three* actions instead of six + free haste + absurd damage. Challenge is only fun if it's reasonably fair, a straight up "you lose" ruins the whole thing.
@@raptorxrise5386 its a common misconception. From Crawford and Sage Advice, using the dash action gives you extra movement equal to your speed. Dash action 3 times would be 30ft +30ft +30ft +30ft or 120ft. Hope this helps!
One of my worst dnd memories is my DM doin the stereotypical "Meet at a tavern" thing
I was playing a barbarian, i bought an ale, DM has me make a con save because "someone poisoned your ale"
roll at nat 20, die instantly anyway, and he hands me a light domain cleric sheet
because "Your party didnt have enoug healers"
Our party was a moon druid, an oath of the ancients paladin, and a bard.
This one might do it for others but my group just adapted. Our DM, for some reason, never rolls bad with a particular set of dice that he owns. Its just him. The bard, sorcerer and me all rolled with them and got normal luck while he would always roll 15s or better...WHILE we were watching. It got to the point where, during a fight, he had an eye of gruumsh orc charged my fighter, double swiped me with his greataxe, crit for both hits and left me with a little less than half health. I would have been worse off but HAM saved me some extra health...only to have a drow sorcerer to walk in the door, launch a Scorching Ray at us all, crit me AGAIN which finally dropped me in the floor. Three crits aka nat 20s on the same person back to back to back...thats a 1/8000 chance or about as rare as a full odds shiny in gen 2 to gen 5 pokemon. After that, we never let him roll with his dice on enemies and I give him my extra set instead.
I had a DM who called an Arcana check when I casted Find Steed. Instead of a steed I can adventure with and mount I got a rat because I rolled 3. If I wanted a familiar I would've casted Find Familiar
That is so fucking dumb…If I was your DM, I would never do such a thing like this…you deserve a better DM at that point
DM: “Fine the rat has a saddle on, are you happy now”.
@@RKNGL Only if that rat has a carry capacity of at least 350 lbs, is tall enough to keep my feet from dragging on the ground, and a round speed equal to a FRACKING HORSE! Or, you could just make it a danged horse!
is there anything stopping you from just... casting it again at the next possible opportunity? also, would 3 normally be enough to pass the check?
@@PihsrosnecI tried that as soon as I could and the DM just hit me with the "nothing happens"
To be fair I've done something similar to the last example. In my case however they were looking for traps on a very suspicious door in a dungeon, got a nat 20 and I told them " ... as far as you are aware it is a completely normal door with no traps of any kind nor are there any in the vicinity." They refused to get anywhere near the door and took a different path. The door was in fact just an door, it wasn't even locked.
"Its just a chair"
Door mimic
I mean to be fair to the last DM, if the dungeon is hard and the party is at a certain lvl maybe don't let the +1 Perception Barb check the bag and instead let the +13 Rogue do it. If they are low level tho a nat 20 should clear basically any check (DC 18 or higher on a low lvl Party is bs).
Ever since Disco Elysium, I avoid these with a change of perspective. As in, a PC's inner sense would chime in and assure them that, no, they're being ridiculous, it is in fact a perfectly normal door. Of course, at that point, I could've as well break character and address the players directly, but I find it more enjoyable my way.
Never trust a door.
So I'm learning how to be a dm and this is extremely helpful stuff! Love the content
This should be a series. As a player working their way up to DM'ing their first campaign. This is actually a really good reference for how not to DM.
I feel like the wild magic surge could be fun if as part of a high level campaign players went to the Fey Wild for a session or two. But in your normal setting, if your gonna do that you might want to use a table for it other than the standard one. Or somehow make it less likly to ruin the campaign. Especially at low level where they can’t do as much to compensate for bad effects.
Yeah, the problem is too many people think 'tee hee you might turn into a potted plant' and too few people remember that sometimes that table is Really Bad.
If this is happening "in a world at the crux of a magical war" then people going about their daily lives would be setting off wild surges everywhere.
Herding sheep that have run amok and nat 1 the animal handling check?
Retracing your steps to find your grandfather's hammer and fail the investigation check?
I thought the idea was it applied only to spell rolls only. Like because of in-universe reasons, magic is unstable or something. Just regular actions like "using your eyes wrong"? Sounds super dumb. What's the in-universe explanation? Are "rolls" a real thing that exists? Do people explode in multicolored confetti while falling out of bed in their sleep or tripping over their words in a meeting?
@@Rodrigo_Vegaand maybe you need to roll a d20 again and get a nat 1 before the surge
I kind of like how it encourages players to be economically with their skill checks- agree thst it could make for an interesting one shot, or just a dungeon room
Most of the time you can just do a skill roll whenever but now each one has a risk to it
Though there's the problem that rolls are random, meaning that a finely crafted plan designed to use the least rolls possible can just fall apart with a bad one
A DM used Strahd’s legendary actions as reactions. I was a melee fighter and every time I got into melee range he would say “When you move there, Strahd sinks into the floor and vanishes.”
Over two hours and he didn’t allow me to swing at Strahd once. No attacks allowed, no opportunity attacks allowed, nothing. When I called him on it, he said “If you’re gonna question how I run Strahd, just don’t. You know what? He runs away and escapes this game is over.”
Jeez did you have sex with their partner?
Throwing a fit and quitting the game was pretty crazy. For the first part though, it is very reasonable for an enemy to utilize their tools to defend against an unprepared player.
@@Raig228 Strahd can only use his legendary actions at the end of an enemy creatures turn, so the player should get the hit and damage in.
Omg that is enfuriating, especially for the end of a Strahd story.... that whole campaign is meant to be frustrating and make party feel so powerless, I personally don't understand why so many love this module.
COS DM's tend to be pretty bad about stuff like this unfortunately...
I don’t normally watch a lot of dnd videos but this was great. Please make more of these kind of videos
I like to play with what I call the "Close enough" rule. If I call for a check and your character is proficient in that skill but you miss the check by 1 or 2, I'll still give you the information, or action attempt but your character will struggle a bit, for information checks your character has that annoying feeling of it being right on the tip of your tongue, for you to recall the information a few minutes/hours later. For action checks that's a bit more situational, usually a stumble/fumble but still succeeding with a minor penalty on your next turn probably half speed for the turn as you recover.
I also use the rule that if you asked to do a different check than the one I call for and you can explain how you would use that skill logically I allow it
The piton example is interesting because it reads a lot into intent and how "gamey" certain mechanics are. You can gently hammer a piton into a guard without intending to attack them (say as a prank while invisible) and if you lack a small hammer and time you could absolutely hammer a piton into a wall with a single strike of a warhammer. Rules as written, neither of those are an "attack" and would not break Invisibility.
The real issue is that consequence was not properly communicated. If the GM had said "If you want to do that I'm going to rule that as breaking Invisibility because this would be too overt. Do you still want to?"
That way the GM has communicated clearly the consequence and reasoning without jumping to punishment, where the player feels unfairly treated. So long as the precedent is enforced fairly from that point on there should be no issues.
To be fair, xp to level 3 was also very wrong. Its not a "tippy tap" it is a hard and loud strike. Potentially repeated. Your stealth is ruined regardless. Attack roll is semantics really.
Irrelevant. A wall is not an enemy, and using a tool to hammer something into a stationary wall doesn't need an attack roll either, hence it's not an attack.
@@TF2CrunchyFrog You can absolutely perform attack rolls against objects, unless we're counting padlocks as enemies. The game even has rules on armour class and HP for such a case. What's the argument there?
"No I'm not attacking it, I'm using my axe to forcefully break it."
Like bro that's an attack. I can use my bow to hammer something into a stationary guard and it's still an attack roll.
I mean, yeah, but common sense shouldn’t be disregarded.
I’d argue if someone while invisble hammers a piton into a guard he will notice something is up. lmao
@@Unormalism But as stated, he's not trying to attack or destroy the wall like one would a door. It's stationary, using a tool designed specifically to pierce without destroying. You don't roll to attack a cake when you cut a slice of it.
A buddy of mine was playing D&D for a college course (as he majored in Game Design), and he had a bad DM experience within this group project. The party was supposed to deliver a chest or something to someone, but the chest was not allowed to be opened (as requested by the quest giver.) Another character wanted to open it anyway, and he resisted them. The GM called for a contested strength check, and my friend rolled a nat 20. The DM ruled that his attempts to keep the chest closed were strong enough to break the chest, revealing the contents anyway. He nearly quit on the spot.
He succeeded so well that he failed. What?
I had this with an intimidation check. Someone was trying to scam my ally out of a fortune (Thank you good insight roll), so my charater said: "Are you "SURE" that's the right price? You don't want to be UNFAIR to my comrade?" ...Intimdation check.. nat 20... gave em a heartattack and they died.. guards rushed in and such.
You think I got arrested, but my comrade was ressurecting him with a revivify.. my barbarian on the other hand...may just had a power boost last session and was surprised they did that. It only got worst when our warlock decided to mess with a magical device in one of the rooms of this place... wich luckily didn't get anyone killed except himself soon.
But this is ridiclous.
Though then again I did a similiar thing when my party got too curious in opening every door at random without thinking.. especially the sorcerer.. so if they rolled strength checks too high on the metal doors that locked off rooms that were under construction.. they pushed it too hard and had to do an acrobatics check to not fall into a building pit. (wich only does a d4 damage at best) This was mostly to punish them from splitting the party and opening random doors wich the sorcerer kept doing...It was just a light warning saying: "Stop running off in dungeons and opening random doors to find loot 1st. Examine if the door ain't boobytrapped and such."
ive heard loads of horror stories like this usualy along the lines of wanting to knock someone out and rolling a nat 20 and the DM saying you hit so hard you killed them
I can see the logic I suppose, they're obviously thinking in terms of a scale. But it's dumb, that would be a potential of what happens on a nat 1. A nat 20 would be doing exactly as you planned. I'm sure he did not plan to break the chest. And if you were to say that the chest was surprisingly easier to open for example, then not only does that still not stand but why would you have had to roll strength in the first place? A nat 20 would be something like him testing to open, finding a sweet spot and popping it open perfectly.
@@isaacsimpson8098 this is why it's useful to at least try to play more varied rpgs not only DnD. Some of the more narrative forward ones like the Powered by the Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark plethora of games teach a GM to judge a roll by the intent, the goal you're trying to acomplish not necessary the method. The why is important for determining succes the how you do it is the fun and flavor. Now I don't allow a roll to happen if I don't understand what the player wants to gain from it. (Obviously the rule that says that unless there is some urgency, obstacle or difficulty you don't ask for a roll and just let the player do what they want is always in effect)
@@kotlolish I'll admit to doing something similar in Shadowrun, but that's a different system. Someone was trying to use non-lethal, electricity-based ammunition to disable people and things. Importantly, in shadowrun, damage rolls over, and machines don't take non-lethal (but can take electric damage). Everything was rolled in front of the table, so he started get the reputation of his non-lethal rounds always being lethal or causing explosions (though mechanically it was all luck). It was fun for the table, though, which is the goal.
My first experience as a player was at a highschool DND club, my first dm was there because the original left, I wanted to scan an area for anything out of placed, rolled a 7 or 8, and was blinded for an hour by seeing the reflection of light from the sun.
I like how he giggled a little on "Thats an attack roll"
Imagine overseeing a game and not wanting everyone to have the best time possible.
Sad.
The way you play a nice DM who misunderstands the rules and is terrible at DMing is so unnervingly accurate.
Like, you hear stories online of the DM who does things that make you rethink your friendship, but sometimes the DM is not a bad guy. He just sucks at making the game fun, and you leave the table, because you aren't having fun. For example, the DM who misunderstood invisibility basically made the player feel like invisibility was a useless spell, but he said it in a way that was nice and not a shouting match. It's a certain type of incompetence, but not malice.
Any GM can make a mistake. A bad GM will claim they never make mistakes.
I am so happy my curent group is wellfunctioning and full of nice humans. A previous DM (also my ex) refused to let me read the players handbook when i played a fighter because " you don't need to look at that, I will keep track for you". Then got mad at me after a TPK because "why didn't you use your abilities? Why didn't you do cool fighter things?"... IDK my man maybe because i did not know i could do them since you know, i did not get to read the rules to remind myself?
This was also the drop in the bucket for me about fighters. I have a fighter curse where my 3 fighters have died for STUPID reasons like the example above or through inaction in regards to obvious wounds from the rest of the group. One of them died because the group decided to venture on with the quest 3 hours the wrong way when i was injured with rend damage in pathfinder. My character should have left the group to seek help.
My first fighter died because a stowaway street child stole my breastplate in the middle of the night and we were attaked by goblins. I died before getting to do anything due to arrows. Don't blame anyone for this, it just sucks and was a case of bad luck. Before anyone says anything about "that is just the way things are and characters die. You can't call it a curse or refuse to play an entire class because you are salty you died in a pretend game". I have been playing for 10 years and out of 20-30ish characters my fighters are the only ones that have died at all. I would be fine with it IF my fighters did not die because stupid reasons.
Could have just said hammering the pitons made noise, attracting the guards' attention, that's very realistic!
11:52 the real crime here is a rogue only having a +1 to perception
Agreed
not to forget that the rule of Nat 1/20 only exist for attacks, a Nat 20 isn't an auto success
Fellas, i cannot stress this enough, as an extrovert with no social anxiety, I DESPISE the stupid. freaking (idk if i should cuss in yt comments or not) rule where you have to do real charisma. My brother in Asmodeus. I rolled a 21. I have a 17 charisma and expertise in persuasion. I should not automatically fail because I have the irl charisma of a red-eyed tree frog sitting in slop. FUCK.
The idea that a DM would make anyone roll their irl stats when the whole point is you get to not use those
you can swear in comments it's ok
Its the same logic as being able to do something physically in the rules but then the dm going "mmmmm that's not realistic" because you can long jump 20ft and high jump 8ft
Don't worry, you can swear in the comments.
That goes so far against the spirit of roleplaying its baffling. It feels like some people took the fun idea of a player actually doing the thing for an advantage given by the DM and just made it a mandatory part of the game. Basically ruins Charisma entirely.
Well climbing a wall like that even if invisible should be loud.