Thumbnail art (Orc Guy) by the amazing Miguel Regodon (Pathfinder artist!) twitter.com/miguel_regodon For those of you who are able to donate to this amazing cause, *thank* *you.* When you donate you'll recieve a message from UA-cam on your screen (on desktop), copy and paste that link into your browser and you're good to go! We've tested everything and it is definitely working, so if you have any issues recieving the link, give it some time and please be patient. To those who can't donate right now, no worries! We can still spread positive Mental Health by supporting each other. You are amazing! ... now I'm going to go back to bed and continue being ill. See y'all in the new year when I'm better!
Hi there! I just donated, but I wasn’t able to get the code for the Discord. There was a problem with me getting the code before the screen changed. Is there another way for me to get the code?
@@fightingfalcon777 I can track your donation, please direct message me on discord (the dnd shorts public discord). It may take a day or two for your donation to come through, but when I can confirm it, I can sort you out! Public discord link here, send me a DM! discord.gg/XZahjbx8ee
I made a donation and I just wanted to personally thank you so much for supporting NAMI. As someone who has struggled with mental illness, I know how hard it is to find help sometimes. Even though I think we have a ways to go in society as far as how mental illness is regarded and treated, we have come a VERY long way. This is due in no small part to NAMI and organizations like it. They have played an integral part in raising awareness and support for those that struggle with maintaining their mental health and living happy, stable, and productive lives. IMO you have chosen a very worthy cause here and I am more than happy to support it, and I consider the chance to play a one shot with you a nice bonus! Thanks again!
About the "more streamers should stream session zero" I think it might be useful for the DM to either add a preamble that gives the specific questions that were discussed in session zero (not the answers) or to post it somewhere accessible to viewers. That way it helps new DMs without sacrificing the privacy of players
I do think it would be nice if streamed or in general live play D&D did have a session 0 for the viewers. One that gets across all the content f the world, any changes the DM has made to the rules, explains any homebrew they're using etc. It can get really confusing when watching D&D content and you see they're doing something not by the rules and you're unsure if it's intentional or not or there's a homebrew subclass being used and it's never explained what it does.
While yes that would be nice, they, like elves, live for a very long time. They have the same issue as elves, and people would ask why in the world the races with the longest lifespans get the most variation. (Though honestly, they should have made the eladrin straight up plant people.)
We need more goblin and orc subraces. If it has an average lifespan, even if that's from high fatality rates, under 50 years then they're probably being forced through a ringer of adaptation. Tieflings have a pretty good number of subraces.
The reason for it is that Moradin made them perfect. He made them the most enduring race ever, as a result they don’t need to change. Think of Dwarves as crocodiles. They haven’t needed to change for over 95 million years because they are perfect as is. Meanwhile elves we’re accidentally made from the blood of Correlon. A god who never had a true form and was basically an god amoeba.
I think this is a spicy golden cake: gatekeeping is necessary to maintain a healthy community. Some people are total Wang rods Sparta kick him in the chest out the door then slam it in their face, if their total Wang rods. I guess they can go find another group of toxic jerks and play d&d, cuz D&D is for everyone, but I don't think anyone needs to play with a jerk
@@w4iph That's not really gatekeeping, though; that's vetting & culling toxic elements. Gatekeeping is stuff like "D&D is only for guys," "any edition other than the one I like isn't D&D," etc.
@@solosynapse The problem is that people who whine the loudest about "gatekeeping" have gone ahead and redefined the term to that so that they still have something they can whine about. (and will redefine it again if needed)
About the races - Our DM imagines his world as being inhabited with the classic fantasy characters - like humans, elves, dwarves . I wanted to try out a tibaxi warlock that was inspired by my cat having differently colored eyes and he told me I can do so, but I would have to deal with my PC being the only Tibaxi in the world as he isn't planing on writing a tibaxi country or anything like that. I then turned that into my characters backstory and made his journey being about looking for the other Tibaxi - and eventually our DM gave in and allowed him to find them on a different plain of existence.
I love that idea. My first thought with "only tabaxi ever" would have been a Wizard Curse lol, or maybe a Divine Test for a paladin (like "sure you're lawful good when people love you, but what about when you're a freaky cat-person?) So there are definitely many ways to balance between "player wants weird race" and "DM doesn't wanna figure out how the culture and ethics of these people play along with the world they literally just finished building"
I was literally about to come and comment, "Spicy Hot Take! 2:19 D&D dies when they don't get new customers." Huh, seems like they die the millisecond they throw away their DMs and content creators then.
Ironic that if the people who made these problems were gatekept this would not have happened. I'm partially joking as there are more issues here. Though I will die on the hill that there is such a thing as healthy gatekeeping
no Dnd dies the moment it tries to be "inclusive" becuase then they try to change the game any way anyone who havent played for 30plus years wants i'm the kind of guy who bought everything Dnd ever put out and they have changed my beloved game to cater to woke idiots and thats why i hope they do die so we can go back to ADND where idoits like taht cant understand simple mathmatics invovled with calucatling THAC0 it was a mechanic that kept idoits from playing the game idoits like the kind of people that say having orc be evil race is racist as they supposedly represent black people somehow so now they gotta make a dnd editon to reflect teh woke idealogoy
@@firefox-op1ok People that think gatekeeping is bad are just people who feel bad about getting gatekept. I definitely gatekeep my games because a few bad players ruin the game for good players, and people dont have the right to use my time on a mediocre game that doesn't beat the fun of dishwashing.
Player vs Player characters fighting in a tournament can be fun role play/combat session when the whole party is either on a low enough level for both the players to have a chance of victory or both have similar classes with different subclasses.
Tournament or to settle inter-party conflicts. For instance, the shadow monk I tested was an aloof strategist, which would have created issues with the paladin soldier if he didn't offer to settle it in a sparing match.
My old group did this every year. We did a battle royale a few times. We also had one campaign where a lot of people were dissatisfied with their characters, so we got pulled into a dream world with new characters and we got killed by each other and our old selves
One of my funniest D&D memories was kind of PvP. I was playing Celestial Warlock, while another player was playing Fiend Warlock. We were heading towards a dragons lair. The Fiend wanted a specific magic item from the dragon's hoard, but the Celestial wanted the Fiend not to have that item. We found the hoard, seeing the item on top of it, but the dragon managed to surprise us, and knocked the other warlock out. While we fought the dragon (and I took my while getting the other warlock back up), I sent my familiar to sneak to the hoard and pick the item. Once the dragon was slain, we headed to the hoard, and the other warlock noticed that the item he wanted for his master was not there anymore. He had bit of a in-character tantrum, and I had to mute my mic because I had hard time not to laugh.
I love PvP in roleplaying games but I have yet to find a good way to use it in my D&D games, a tournament would work great but that's not the kind of game I run. I'll just keep pitting my friends against each other in world of darkness instead.
Possession/mind control is also always fun. give your players permission to go all out on their team and watch them enjoy the hell out of it. Probably works best in tier 2, when they aren't super squishy but don't have the really heavy stuff yet.
@@brandonlee747 Habanero, the original comment in the video likely assumed that because Jalapeño starts with J, Habanero did too because a lot of English speaking people make and H sound, even though the H in Habanero is silent
Sounds like exactly the kind of dumb stuff I would put in my d&d campaign lol, though imagine coating a sword with spicy, just to inflict Psychological pain as your body feels like it's on fire from each cut
Honestly, that kind of item sounds like something my current character would use and weaponize. It reminds me of his first weapon, a club that constantly produced soot, so that the weapon (and consequently, the wielder) would never be clean. Sounds like crap, but a few adventures and levels down the road, and it was enchanted so that in addition, in battle it could produce 30' soot clouds that obscured vision and did damage as the people who stood in it breathed in the soot. Then a few more adventures and levels down the road, it had a magical crystal mounted onto it that allowed the soot clouds to be ignited, with damage comparable to a casting of Burning Hands, three times a day. Maybe not a god-tier weapon, but definitely a versatile and fun weapon, and even at level 15, it still sees use as a primary.
I never understood why Polearm Master + Sentinel was a problem. You invest two feats into stopping one enemy. You don't even need to use ranged enemies to counter it, you just need to send two enemies at one person.
It is a bit of a problem for the sheer dpr boost, especially on classes like paladin who rely on hitting a lot. Also enemies very rarely actually are able to have the knowledge and ability necessary to coordinate and counter such a combo and sending two enemies doesn’t even actually counter it. Plus you can do some very nasty combos (with the Oath of the Open Sea for example)
Or send one enemy with 10ft reach and it doesn't even stop them lmao, dragons, devils and demons all come to mind with a lot of them having 10ft reach attacks, or really any large beast like a mammooth or trex.
@@crystallxix1493 polearm master has all of the DPR boost in it, and it is only really a problem before Extra attack comes in (Yes it outdamages sword and shield by a mile, but that is sword and shield being underpowered). The enemies also don't know what spells the wizard has, can they stand in a line, or a circle, well, depends if the wizard has lightning bolt or fireball prepared. That a martial has 1 trick that can surprise the monsters, after spending 2 feats on it, is not a bad thing. Even enemies who can't coordinate will still get to the polearm user some times, because he won't hit every time. Also enemies with reach 10 feet, just don't care about the sentinel part. Sure some enemies are going to have a really bad time, but that is okay, you spend 2 feats on it.
Yeah excatly. I like having well rounded-up builds as player characters in my games, it usually means I get to throw more fun at them when it comes to combat. Also, if you are a LE DM, (and your players know it) you always just be like; You are suddenly sucked into a natural conduit you encountered into the wild. *You are now, in, *rolls* Abyss!*
I always tell my players, “Sexual encounters will be faded to black. If you ABSOLUTELY INSIST on roleplaying it, I will make sure it is the most awkward and shameful experience of your life.”
unfortunately, some players want that I have some that are *really* into cringe-comedy and I have to make sure they're in the same group instead of mixed in with the others
I typically agree with this---role play in sexual encounters can be fun, but a TTRPG is typically the wrong venue unless your group is very special indeed. That said, depending on the campaign, the important bits can be in the pillow talk afterwards--that can be critical, especially if you're going for a fantasy James Bond type of feel, or a gritty fantasy version of Sin City or any number of other kinds of milieus. It's a great way to establish underworld contacts or to develop a reach into high society if you're dealing with a courtesan, or your character happens to be one (think a rogue based on Inara from Firefly). Sex and lust are core drives and vices, and that can be utilized in a game if care is taken on why it's being introduced and how it advances the game story. These are great contacts for PCs if handled well.
And I'm afraid that as Baldur's Gate 3 introduces more people to D&D, many are going to _expect_ it to be suggestive at a minimum, and for some they'll want to push the lewdness further.
Fun thing happened. My old dm ran a campaign that did death differently. Everytime you’d fall to 0 hit points, instead of going into death saves you’d encounter “the ferryman”. There you would have to trade some kind of magical item in exchange for your life back. Thankfully, I never got there with my hp but there were some times that worried me.
That sounds cool. My idea is that the Adventurers are Researchers of the Arcane and other paths so they can forge things that revive them. Clone up a improved body, kill a monster and pay Death with it soul, unmoor yourself from life and lose abit of your soul each time you need to possess a creature or object.
Thank you so much to the amazing UA-camrs who appeared in this video, and everyone who commented under the original post! I'm exaggerating for comic effect a lot in this video, even if we don't agree on a D&D opinion, that's cool! Different tables need different things!
Thanks for supporting those with mental health issues. As a vet with physical and mental health impairments D&D has been a saving grace for me. You are amazing and enjoy the content you publish.
I believe the gatekeeping guy was trying to say “the people who try to change the community” everyone changes the game for themselves, but there’s that special jerk who makes a change and expects everyone else who plays to follow their lead like they’re a messiah despite having played only one game
I kinda feel this way about people trying to change things to not fit established lore. Like, good and evil are actual literal cosmic forces in the setting, and they try to argue that its morally wrong for it to be that way based on real world context, then shame WotC for portraying a fantasy world as being fundamentally different in a way that makes them uncomfortable.
My dnd group has 3 DMs at the party and we switch it when the current DM wants to play a character. It leads to amazing stories that connect with different perspectives on the overall story, but we make sure that it doesn't go too far off so that the next DM is unable to do anything.
I agree some with the elven longevity v. diversity one, though I sorta feel the range of subspecies for elves reflects more on how their environment influences them more strongly than most other species, being of the feywilds and all. Even eladrin tend to change just on their moods and seasonal vibes. :o
@@realdragon yup, that's the whole thing with the feywild and its residents. its adaptation bamfed up on magical meth. Even subspecies that don't live there anymore still came from the fey so it makes sense they'd shift to better fit their new environments quicker than more material-based species, just as it makes sense those like eladrin who still live there are far more mutable than other elves
Re: Session 0: when it comes to "I'm uncomfortable with this" you can brush by that with "we used this form to outline what everyone is comfortable with. Like for instance, I have on here that I don't like spiders. We're going to avoid spiders" (or another consenting example of it) and then go on with the rest of what happens in a session 0. Like talking about the character backstory, and "I want to explore what happened to my characters sister, what my character remembers is XYZ, but is that actually what happened?" Etc
I had a DMPC for the first game I DM’d, but it was mostly because I only had two players and I was worried they were going to get stomped (TPK’d) in the oneshot module I was running. It ended up working pretty well as I remember it. It took forever sure but we still managed it in one day and everyone had fun. Not to say it’s always the best idea all the time, but it probably won’t bring death and ruin to your game unless you do so on purpose.
same for me only had 3 players and none of them wanted a healer, so my dmpc was mentor from the guild who apon request from the characters to train them until they where strong enough to pass the guild trail but ended up leaving early as another person joined so the dmpc was just a healbot that chilled in the background during fights and aloud me to help them out as they where new players to teach them mechanics of their classes.
That is exactly how I use it, too. I hate how dismissive he is about it. Like there could be no occasion where it would be beneficial for everyone and "if you want to play just go find others to dm for you" is easy for people to say that have time to waste trying group after group online until they find one they work in. Some of us have to make due with what we have.
@@DarkAtamis a lot of his takes come from the POV of someone that has never been unable to get a full size group together. As the once forever DM I had 2-3 friends that wanted to play all the time, and... That was it. Good to see how much the hobby has expanded
I was in a similar situation except it wasn't a one shot. It was LMoP. It worked then because I had a party of two with a third who was joining eventually (they were constantly busy so they just never got to it). It's a tightrope though because the stereotype of the op dmpc who is one shotting all the enemies because they're level 20 first session and the focal point of the game is probably why most people say don't do it. That and you slow the game up a bit, but with 2 other players it might not be noticable
I used to have only my two cousins, and I played while being the DM. They liked it, but because of one we don't play anymore. (Not his fault. He just won't play anymore) So now it is just me and my brother, and it is much easier, and more fun for both of us if I am also a character.
I like how many people I recognized reading things in this video. Real neat to see such a huge collaborative effort. Also, uncensored Dingo swearing is a treasure I was not expecting to find
I began to realize he got other d&d channels to read the hot takes as soon as a heard Chaz (from Mann Shorts) at 2:52 Edit: it’s funny to hear Dingo swear without it being covered by the duck sound
*Looks at Woke WOTC which was starting to alienate players before the KleptOGL drove everyone with any sense away.* Um... maybe consider that "new players" aren't bad... it's the new players who want to change the game fundamentally and won't stop until they do that for the entire game that ARE a problem.
I have a fun moment to share. Regarding dmpcs, back when I was running tomb of annihilation I kinda had a npc join the party for story reasons and would roleplay her as a pc but when it came to combat situations I just printed out a statblock and let the players handle her. She kinda became an advisor and healer for the party and it worked great for our group. Turns out they kept gathering followers and had two pets a shield guardian and a this glorified hireling by the end of it.
I think the thing with mele/spell caster balance works, especially in dungeon crawls. The mele characters are useful in helping the spellcasters preserve their big spells for the big encounters. The mele are carrying bulkload of the encounters for the spell casters. In the big encounters the mele are also the wall enemies have to cut through to get to the squishy spell casters. Sure, there are ways for enemies to get through a mele formation defense, but that's also part of the fun.
Yeah casters are only really OP if the DM runs only 1-3 combat encounters per long rest. The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests throughout the day. It also makes warlocks less reliant on Eldritch Blast. It doesn’t even need to drag out the session. The adventuring day can be split across multiple sessions.
In terms of gatekeeping, I think it makes *sense* in 2 cases. 1) Gatekeeping the creative team. there have been multiple instances I can point to where people who activly Dislike or even hate a product have ended up incharage of it, and have ended up making descisions that Prettymuch everyone, unanimously, have agreed are bad. this hasnt happened too much in TTRPGS (aside from the orc thing, which is still super weird), but Industrys TV and comics are filled with it. Case and point, its been reported by multiple sources that the showrunners of the Witcher Hate the IP and original source, which was a huge contributing factor to henry Cavil leaving the role. 2) Gatekeeping your table in particular if someone joins and wants everyone else to play their way. This I am Calling gatekeeping but its really more of a case of someone being rude and bringing down the mood for everyone else. A group of people should not have to bend the way they prefere to play for the whims of an individual, and in the inverse, if you want everyone your playing with to change for you, maybe it would be better to find a different group. Tabletop is an inherently social event, so I think its important that everyones wants and needs are heard at the table, However if your joining mid game, or if your asking a long running group that you are new too to change something fundamental about their campaigns its probably better for everyone that you just find someone else to play with, so everyone is happier in the long run. TLDR: Gatekeeping the entire hobby full stop is dumb. Gatekeeping specific small portions of it *can* (key word CAN) be a good idea or even necessary.
I often introduce interesting guide NPCs into my games for my players to interact with and on one occasion particularly the players encouraged that guide to join their quest as a mascot/squire giving him gear, training him, encouraging him to become a hero. In some cases players may take advantage of this and use NPCs as trap fodder or goblin bait but in this case they made the adventure less about them and more about him. He was the hero in the story and they absolutely loved it. They got to play Obi-Wan and Han Solo type mentors and the NPC became Luke. Whenever he shows up they get excited and RP telling stories of their exploits and even ask if he has time to help with a quest. I get to play and my players force me to do so but they are the ones making all the important decisions. He never solves the puzzles never hints at mysteries but does on occasion help with important skill checks. One of the players even jokes about adopting him.
I think the issue here is various definitions of DMPC verses NPC in the PC group run by the DM. It is not black and white, but a spectrum. I have run such characters for over 40 years and it works well. One has to be careful to let the PCs make the major decisions, but the DMPC can give their opinion. This can be extremely helpful when the Players seem stuck on what to do or a track of thought that will lead to disaster.
Eh. I've always found this stance to be hypocritical and a bit short-sighted. If you play or meet people at a game shop, you will probably end up interacting with most if not all regulars there. If you exclude someone from your table because you don't like them for any reason at all, that person is fairly likely to not show up at the shop again if their exclusion was a dramatic event. Or if most people at the shop think a certain way, that effectively excludes everyone they don't like in your local neighborhood from playing D&D. To put it another way: People who are "against" gatekeeping suddenly change their tune if a guy in Klan robes or covered in human shit shows up at the game shop. "Just find another table" is a dishonest response that kicks the can down the road. You've excluded them from your table with no knowledge of whether or not that person is even capable of finding another table. Everyone gatekeeps because it is human nature; not all humans are compatible. It's silly to deny that you do it or claim that you can stop it from happening. To put it an even simpler way: Everyone in these comments, including the video creator, is trying to gatekeep the executives at Hasbro and WotC from this hobby at the moment.
They're NOT doing it at their own tables. They're trying to get in on all groups and into the staff of the game company itself (and ARE on the WOTC staff) to change it into Politically Correct drek. Remember: WOTC is having financial difficulty because of things like the "race R Species" change, and other attempts at controlling people's thoughts instead of letting them just play the game.
I mean some level of gatekeeping does prevent gate crashing. But like minimal. Setting boundaries and expectations for your table is gatekeeping. But like a good kind.
Most people don't realize that there is a line between npc party member and DMPC. Because of the size of my table, I have several npc party members that come and go as needed based on the desires and needs of the party and the mission. The line comes in remembering that they are just another tool in the players toolbox. An npc thief is there to disarm traps, locate secret doors, pick locks, and serve as an extra body during fights.. They are not there to serve as your mouthpiece, or steal the spotlight from the players, unless the players want them more involved in the current adventure.
I just keep grinning from excitement after hearing all of the amazing people participating on production of this video. Thank you very much ya all, collaborations like this feel awesome to see. ❤️
As to the player balance issue, I think when people say that Wizards are "overpowered" what they really mean is that it feels like the Wizard is playing their own game while the martials all have to work as a team. People rarely call the Cleric OP, despite the fact that it is a pretty OP class, because many of the Cleric's abilities involve interaction with the rest of the team. Especially protection domain clerics have to spend their time working with the team, not just hurling fireballs into the middle of a group. I think team-focused adjustments to magic could make Wizards feel less OP witthout robbing them of much power. Like, instead of Fireball, maybe your wizard can create an explosion around an ally. That encourages the Wizard to also have support spells like Haste to help get the ally into ideal position, then use a magic spell which changes a basic attack spell into one that encourages teamwork and utilization of the full breadth of your abilities.
I agree the problem isn’t wizards are OP it’s wizards are self servingly OP. Especially late game how is the fighter supposed to keep up in combat when the wizard is literally altering reality and dropping proverbial nukes
I think the problem then is just that your spell casters aren't taking any team playing spells. Which could mean that your encounters are too easy from the spell casters' perspective if they can just throw fireballs the whole fight. You just need to incentivize the behavior to change somehow with how the fights happen.
Morale of the story is that unless it’s egregious to the point of removing fun, then people are more willing to put up with something being OP if it’s supportive.
SECOND POST BUT: I had to counter the Elf one. That is a Milky Trash take. Elves, as conceptualized in DnD (and Forgotten Realms as its the primary setting) from Mordenkinens Tome of Foes, are a Fey descended race. Their original form was something incredibly malleable, something that made the 4 seasonal forms of Eladrin look like they were slow and set in stone. They were less Person and more Thoughts that Could Take Shape, Sometimes as a Person. But when Lolth got all rebelly and took the Drow with her, the elves, especially the ones that followed and settled into the Prime Material, lost a lot of that feyness. Drow are the least Fey, and most material, being closest to Lolth, while the various environmental ones are much much closer to Feywild elves. They are very much products of that early generation of malleable Elves that settled in the area. The generic High Elf though is that middle ground between Set in Stone Drow and Environmentally influenced Regional Elf. So they were once NOT animals that were affected by evolution and only technically turned into animals that are affected by evolution well after they adapted to their locations via non evolutionary means.
The problem with that is that elves' ToF lore isn't the original lore, which not only means all the fuckton of subraces predates it, but also that it wasn't thought out as a justification to that. Also, the Material Plane elf subraces are clearly distinct and not at all malleable. Sun elves cannot turn into moon elves, just as grey elves cannot turn into wood elves.
You made this point better than I could. I'm surprised the Avariel (winged elves) haven't been added to 5e yet considering all the races with flight we have now, they're mentioned in a side bar in SCAG, but no actual player options.
@@drakegrandx5914 Some of that *is* mentioned in SCAG though. And OP is not saying that the subraces turn into each other, it's saying that the diversity was from before, and being in the material plane "lock" them into one form. (you know, their whole last sentence. "So they were once NOT animals that were affected by evolution and only technically turned into animals that are affected by evolution well after they adapted to their locations via non evolutionary means.")
@@GKplus8 The point still stand that, as they were originally created, the elves subraces are not meant to be credited to the "malleability of the first elves"; so, unless you take SCAG/ToF's lore specifically into consideration, it's still vey akward to have so many elf subraces in the world in comparison to dwarves, not to talk about gnomes and kenku.
My Hot take: I believe it is better to homebrew a campaign for new DMs that way they can make their own worlds, rules, choose what you want to allow and not be concerned about messing with an already existing world. Yeah it could be overwhelming but I say they would learn more through this than modules
D&D started out that way, and I agree that it helps build DM skills. Plus you never have to struggle with understanding what the module writer intended, or fitting the module's weird dynamics to your table's needs.
Even more if you are DMing for a more experienced player than you or a player that know more about the lore of DnD than you. Making your own world avoid a lot of contradictions and problems at the table.
re: elven subraces. before elves were tricked into physical forms they existed flitting through all the different planes. then an event occurred in which they took physical forms wherever in the multiverse they were, taking on aspects of the plane they were in. so there should be at least one subrace of elf for every iteration of every plane in the multiverse (except the ones where their creation occurred in a completely different manner) thanks for all the great vids shorty :)
Agreed. I think he forgot that Elves' entire thing is that they are sort of being "punished" for taking on a defined form when it wasn't what Corellon intended. If they weren't tricked they'd be a group of cool Omega shifters. Because humaniod definitely wasn't a limitation for them in the old days.
That sort of depends on the setting. I don't mind them, though. If they don't fit in a setting they can always be removed or limited at the group's digression.
Sure, that justifies WotC making then more and more stupidly broken as time goes on. Let's give them free proficiencies that they get to choose every day. Oh, we forgot about weapon proficiencies, let's give them that choice on top of a skill proficiency of their choice that they can change on a whim. Oh hell, free misty step too because why the fuck not? Astral elves were a mistake and I'm glad elves went back to vanilla for One Dnd. Dragonborn didn't deserve that thougg
@@S.Grundy I mean they already got a ton of free weapon proficiencies anyway. And skills if we're being honest. Tiefling gets shit on as being the build a bear race, but Elves were always the king.
With respect, the Gate Keeping comment was very good advice. True, the original comment wasn't expressed the optimal way it might, but you also interpreted it in the worst way possible. Wanting to keep something the same way as it was when you came into something (be in D&D or anything else), shows respect and love for the thing you found to be enjoyable. If you want to radically change it, then you didn't actually care for it to begin with (which is a different thing entirely than breaking certain fantasy tropes at someone elses table that you wouldn't at yours, and I wish you hadn't pretended otherwise).
The "don't play weird races" take feels like a personal attack. One of my favorite characters i play is a rabbit-folk paladin named Natalia Hop that rides a drake into combat and wields a lightning spear. I love her.
I have a mixed view on that one. If the world has them already or has a reasonable way for them to be there, great! Do it. But I dislike when someone expects a GM to jimmy something into their setting that isn't already there.
It often causes issues for DMs in the roleplay sense. Like, how do you expect real people would react to a rabbit woman named Hop? There would absolutely be jokes. Or when someone plays a race that lore wise would be hated, but expects to be treated normally, like racism is a thing with just humans on earth, imagine how bad it would be if other species that were actually mainly evil existed. Also if people saw a drake just out somewhere, I'd say the reasonable reaction would be to cast fireball first and ask questions later.
@@SirDankleberry As a GM I would allow races endemic to the setting said module was in. Depending on the setting I may allow some flubbing but probably not. And here's the thing... I don't need an excuse aside from that's not how I want to run my game. As a player I ask questions about the game and it's setting, tone, and what the GM is looking to do and make a character based on that. I don't come in with an idea I HAVE to play and try to brow beat the GM into letting me. That's some special unique snowflake ass garbage.
Personally I only ever restrict races when I can't fit them into my setting. In my campaigns case, I limited UA, Ravnica, and Theros. The first one for obvious reasons, but the other two because I had no idea how to fit them into a chainsaw man, and jjk inspired campaign (at least in theme). But when one of my players wanted to try the homebrewed Channeler class (he and I both love Jojo) it was an easy addition because of the "open" lore the maker came up with. Essentially, you do you as a DM and just have a good reason. If you really don't understand how to include a race into a story, be honest about it.
My take is: The race you want to play does not exist in my world. That does not mean you can not play that race, but you are not that race. Nobody living in the game world knows what you are; there is only you and maybe your clan.
I have a friend who plays in my game, and when we started he started complaining that he had wanted to take the best character options from every book, l and that if I didn't allow every legal option from every published Official book that I was unfairly restricting players. My outlook is that I am running a specific world. Many of the options from setting books simply aren't in my world. I don't see a problem with barring things that don't fit your world. Heck, The new Dragonlance book even shows that this outlook is OK. several of the options in the new Dragonlance states that a prerequisite for access is to be playing in a Dragonlance specific campaign. DM should be able to state what they are allowing in their campaign. Having a specific setting is not an attempt to limit player creativity... It's the in game equivalent to running Star Trek and not allowing people to play Jedi and Wookies or making the Federation encounter and come into conflict with the Empire. While not theoretically impossible, it's certainly not the kind of request from a player that a DM has to feel obligated to comply with.
@@johnevans5782 The Wars/Trek example is the exact one I give to my players regarding establishing a sensical framework for a campaign. Also, don't bother reading the Monster Manual. I rarely use it and change whatever I use anyway.
@@johnevans5782 I completely agree with you. A tabletop RPG is supposed to be a collaborative experience. If one party, in this case your player, came in expecting to have it all their way or it would be unfair they're misunderstanding how to play the game fundamentally. You, as the DM, set the ground rules for your campaign, that you put together through hard work and if that's not okay to the players, they're free to seek another DM. In the end, it's a little bit of give and take.
My take on DM Player Characters is that I like having NPCs fight alongside the party, but I do it for specific reasons and follow certain rules: 1) They’re kinda there to be an in-world “direction” for the party. Lost? Can’t follow the story? Not sure where to go next? Ask the NPC! They can kinda guide the party through our relatively short sessions if need be. 2) they’re temporary, only showing up for a single quest, and they only really speak or interject when spoken to. 3) I try to keep them from getting the spotlight or taking glory from the players. For the most part, I try to keep the NPC to a minimum, and mainly include as “friends” the party has made along the way. It can be fun whenever the party finds themselves in a bind and can call upon their old friends for help or advice. Also, these characters can die and make a more emotional impact, kinda substituting that “player death impact” without actually killing someone’s favorite PC. My main word of advice to anyone trying for this is to temper the balance of these PCs and make sure they don’t take over the fight, and make their turns simple and fast.
I'm the person who wrote the spicy take XD I kept it vague to keep with the spicy hot take theme, but in my comment back then I explained how the DMPC is essentially just an NPC that also has an inventory and actually gets their subclass and features as opposed to just using the generic stat blocks like "archer" and such. They don't make any decisions for the party and otherwise act as an NPC. I've had to do this a few times when my table has gone down to too few players.
My own opinion on DMPCs: I think WoTC has actually implemented a way to integrate "quasi-DMPCs" into the game fairly well, mostly in the form of "sidekicks". Hel, we've even had mechanics in earlier editions in hiring bodyguards to help out players. The struggle for DMs at that point is keeping track of all of the extra work during encounters with additional friendly NPCs.
I have a take: There should be multi-type monsters. For example, a flesh slime is considered an ooze, but it could be an undead-ooze. A flesh colossus is a construct, but it could be and undead-construct. A mimic is a monster, but it could be a monstrous-aberration, because honestly I think mimics match aberrations more so than monsters. Spicy trash take over. (:
14:20 Absolutely disagree. The player who plays her "horny bard" has just as much right to have fun and play her character as she wants as the others. And no, it's not necessarily played "for a joke", and playing a seductress can allow us to address deep themes such as consensuality or autonomy. On a more meta level, it can allow a roleplayer to create an idealized version of herself, where she is more confident and entrepreneurial than she ever will be in real life. Damn, seriously! Which is more unhealthy: a bard who uses her charms and has consensual sex, or a guy who uses the "Command" spell with words like... "Betray", "Blaspheme" (we have paladin/cleric), or a simple “Grovel” with the aim of decapitating its target on the ground? Damn, carry a sack of many small items, dump them out and Command the target to "Count" them. It doesn't function very differently than "Grovel" but a lenient DM may rule that a less intelligent creature would also drop their weapons and begin counting the object by hand... These are just examples, but damn, I find spells like "charm monster" or "charm person" way more problematic than a bard seducing a guy in a tavern because she danced and tried to find a sweetheart for the night ! Even immobilization spells are... not good, morally speaking. In any case, it is abnormal to consider that a player "who doesn't like the way he plays" has priority over her. It is absolutely abnormal to consider that this player is morally justified in depriving her of her gaming pleasure. Some like to throw fireballs and annihilate the local wildlife. Others like sword fights, or ax fights, dismembering their opponents in a rain of blood and entrails... Still others like to invade the mind of their target, who under influence find themselves the equivalent of automatons... But that’s “good”, it’s “funny”. On the other hand, the bard who has committed the irreparable by seducing with her talents and her natural charisma, that's "not good", that's "forbidden". Seriously. Ask yourself questions. If her being "naughty" is a problem for one player, but not for others or the DM, I think the problem is easily identifiable. From a purely ethical and moral standpoint, the only "in-game" sexual interactions that should be problematic are those that would be illegal in real life. And in a game where creatures demonstrate sensitivity and desires similar to humans... A bard seducing a creature with any sentience similar to that of a human can be considered normal.
The gatekeeping, for the whole of DND, I’m with you on But when a new person enters your group and DOES try to change the way everyone else in the group plays to fit them, THAT is when I feel like that philosophy is valid There’s a group out there for every play style Instead of trying to mold the first one you come across to fit yours, go out and find a group with the same play style There’s a huge difference there
Outsiders aren't the problem. If better gatekeeping had been performed within WoTC over the past 10 years, the focus would be on the actual material rather than idiotic retcons and word substitutions. Nothing was ever stopping people from having cuddly orcs and drow who just want to be your friends, RPing as baristas in a magic school, or using the word "species" if that's the proper fit for your table. But when the weirdos took over the corporate controls, now they're forcing those, as well as every inane complaint from the twitter idiots, upon others as the new default and THAT is where the problem lies. Just waiting for someone to find the word "dungeon" to be problematic because of the historical actions of the Spanish Inquisition or perceived disparagement of the BDSM community, and suddenly they're gonna have to change the name.
I donate to MIND as I am in the UK But kudos for supporting a mental health charity as it is still a very overlooked area of funding needs to aid and promote help worldwide
Ability score improvements should have just been what they established in Tasha's- you pick where the +1/+2 go based on what you want. If I want to play a farmer who becomes a Wizard, I should be able to put my bonus in Int instead of having it stuck in Str/Con. Maybe he's a scrawny farmer and not as strong as everyone else, so he started picking up magic to overcome that in his work. Backgrounds should be an additional proficiency and maybe, like, a relevant feat or something. And species should be things that are species-specific like orcs' carrying strength or dragonborns' breath weapon.
On the subject of flight, I don't think it's a big problem in the combat pillar. Where it can really get out of hand is the exploration pillar. Having both been and DMed over a flying player, it can be really easy to circumvent a lot of obstacles, especially if you dare have an adventure in any environment other than "cramped underground cave."
@@octavianpedigree5866 It would be unfortunate if there was a bunch of enemies with a net or two waiting at the other side at some point. Not every time, but like once or twice.
3:15. On one hand, I can relate. It is so hard to find stats and information about so many races to the point where it's overwhelming. Also, you might have an idea for a world where a certain race doesn't fit that well (warforged). On the other hand, I absolutely agree with being creative. Play whatever race you want. My party just finds it easier to play the races found in the players handbook and Volo's guide. It's a comprehensive list with awesome options and we have easy access to them. In the end, do what you feel like doing. Put in the extra mile or keep it simple, whatever you like.
12:40 personally the compromise I make for this type of thing that my players like is making the DMPC your "Guy in the Chair" who gives you info if you ask and gives you a general direction to head, while also being funny and entertaining enough to not get annoying. Granted it's not even technically a DMPC, but it's also not just a random NPC in the world since they're also the one who keeps the party on their way.
I agree with your take on the ASI's so heavily. Background ASIs are my absolute favourite thing that has been changed in OneDND and I'm implementing it in my games the moment I get to run one. It makes much more sense to me and also inspires more interesting traits in the species from a design standpoint.
Counterspell - Thinks back to Critical role, C1: casts life threatening spell against pc (not even knocked unconscious, would have killed) counter spell *saves life*. Dm counter spell that. Player: counter spell. And this is why it's great. It builds drama, uses up not only reactions, but spell slots, and just adds so much f you to both sides.
>let your players design themselves however they want Have you hear the good word of GURPS yet? I could write a book about all the crazy character concepts my players have come up with. Sentient Space Hamster Diplomat with Heat Vision not only makes sense in context, it doesn’t even crack the top 5
"Outsiders aren't a danger to DND" led to "A cleric player might take the healer feat, and in the middle of the fight, discover it's around healer's kits, not spells" being the reason for changing healer from healer's kit to just buffed number on spell. A justification given for the ODD feat changes, is the example of a player not reading their feat for what is extremely likely to be an *entire week*. They're literally changing the game going forward (and the given support!) to accommodate "This game is too hard to understand (literally read one paragraph over an entire week) can we change the rules". I'd rather they base their changes on people with functioning literacy?
As someone who started playing during the 3.5e era where rules were a lot more explicit in what you could or couldn't do but were also written in a very complex way requiring understanding of a lot of internal terminology, I find 5e's "streamlined" approach to rules to give a lot of leeway to DMs thereby discouraging players from learning RAW. " They're literally changing the game going forward (and the given support!) to accommodate "This game is too hard to understand (literally read one paragraph over an entire week) can we change the rules". I'd rather they base their changes on people with functioning literacy?" The game is in fact complex, and as it becomes appealing to a wider audience it's bound to attract people who can't understand it. Here certain parts of the D&D community fall apart because it becomes that tables responsibility to ensure the person you're playing with understands the rules, or decide the player isn't worth the trouble and drop him. If we pretend we're the company trying to sell D&D books and rules, and we notice we have a trend among consumers complaining that the merchandise is too complex, then what we do is make it simpler - we sell more shit, make more money, fatter bottom line. In the end D&D has become a business and as such, the product will adapt to demand. AD&D or 3.5e-like rule structure will not see the light of day in a new format, and it's going to be up to each table to pick and choose which rules they use, and probably house-rule 40% of the RP related rules (keep management, logistics, servants, housing, business, etc.) or use a different system that suits them. Shit happens man, we deal or we don't.
One of the biggest thing I always think about is where the line between a DM-PC and a NPC is. Cause the new source book, the Divine connection and the Out of the Abyss to some degree has characters tagging along the players.
This was just a fun video. I loved all the extra guests. I was able to get most of them, BUT not all and this is a fun way to be introduced to new channels. Thanks to every one who took part in the fun.
As an older player that has played with many, many groups over the years, the "horny bard" thing is a modern concept. Back in the day in pretty much every group I played in the bard would be used for free rooms at the inn, getting in to see the queen, calming down the charging wolf pack, etc. I think it is a comment about our society as a whole that it evolved into "have sex with everyone".
@smokeydabear4525A key difference is the stereotype is "I seduce whatever is in front of me because my charisma is the only thing I've read on my sheet" and "I SUMMON BLUE EYES ABYSS DRAGON, THEN HAVE SEX WITH IT, I END MY TURN"
And what is wrong with that?! It could easily be in character. Let people just roleplay as they want. What if you want to play a sort of casanova seductor-bard? Or a warlock of succubus demon-lord, or a cleric of pleasure cult? Why the **** it shold be shunned?
@@agat882 Well, I think that people who express their sexual frustration via roleplaying with their friends REALLY need to work out whatever it is that they have going on in their lives instead of focusing on games. Also, roleplaying those types of encounters with your DM/etc is kinda weird. And this is crappy roleplaying: player - I seduce the dragon dm - ok roll for it player - 20! I seduced the dragon! dm - ok the dragon is seduced. No DM likes to act out seduction scenes with their players. Well, maybe some DMs that have issues like to do it, but I don't know any of those.
One and only problem I have with new races is that as a dm I need to do the work to fit them into my setting and sometimes it's a bit of a pain. But if a player is game for shouldering a bit of that and brainstorm some lore it might be even more fun :)
6:20 I agree with you about counterspell. At the table that I run, there's a gentleman's agreement of promising not to overuse it which has helped keep the game healthy. To me, the problem with counterspell is that it's not interactive at all and that's why it sucks when it is used on you. At my table, I made counterspell more interactive by homebrewing to become a contested ability check and my players liked it a lot more. I handle counterspell like this: - Reaction and range is the same. - The one using counterspell handles the roll like this: D20 + Arcana modifier + spell casting modifier + level of spell slot used for counterspell. If they roll higher, the counterspell works. - The one being counterspelled handles the roll like this: D20 + Arcana modifier + spell casting modifier + level of spell. If they roll higher, spell goes through. If it was a player, they also get an inspiration point (you can have multiple inspiration points saved in my games).
About that gatekeeping comment, I think the problem is more how the OP wrote it. In your response, you mention, correctly, that how one group decides to play doesn't affect you if you aren't part of it. However, that isn't the problem. The problem is, from my experience, when people say they want to do something or play in a certain way at another person's table and their idea gets shot down they'll sometimes pull the "You're gatekeeping me!" card. One example (and trust me, you'll love this) was when a player wanted to use a combat wheelchair, but the DM shot it down saying he didn't like the idea of them. The player proceeded to accuse him of gatekeeping.... somehow, and left shortly after a few exchanges between us and her. This is how I often see the term "gatekeeping" utilized, and it's where I think the OP is going when he says the line about "changing the way people play". I could, however, very well be taking it out of context because, as stated before, that's my experience with the word's usage, and I've seen it used like this in other places too. Regardless, OP's problem seems more about people's behavior rather than new people in general. I will say that if that player did manage to find a game where she's allowed to use a combat wheelchair, none of us are going to care because 1) despite anyone's issue with the combat wheelchair, none of us are going to care if someone else uses it at their table and 2) we're peacefully enjoying our game with no whiners. Win-Win. Great video, by the way. Nice hearing all the different creators reading these.
I have a piping hot take! I think "gatekeeping" to save you the pain of bending over backward making the game something it isn't and also because other games and communities deserve their time in the sun too. Imagine someone who's never played basketball before suddenly come on the court and goes "I wanna play basketball but can we use our feet instead of our hands and let get a bigger field and put the hoop sideway on the ground and make it 11 times bigger" like honey the soccer team's right next door and they're wonderful people! Let me introduce you to them!
Agreed. Its Gatekeeping not guard duty. We help people come in just as much as we guide others out who don't belong. There are countless examples of things being ruined by people joining a community and demanding change that lead to the communities downfall.
@@firefox-op1ok "It's gatekeeping not guard duty" is a really good phrasing. Plus, D&D is heavily based on the principle of subsidiarity - if you don't like something in the core rules, your table can change it for your own table and no other group has to care.
I was about to point this out. Gatekeeping as a term is highly demonized but, as with everything in life, a good little amount is always gonna be healthy for the community in order to not find ourselves playing basketball like soccer (and i'd argue that WotC made some changes to the game that somehow resemble this, but nothing major) And fortunately at my table i can do whatever i want, so d&d doesn't need as much gatekeeping, but it still does
@@firefox-op1ok hell, just look at the sewing hobby. You'd like that's be an astoundingly safe and inoffensive hobby, yeah? Nope, it's apparently bigotted as hell and the new generation of sewers are full of people who spend more time making sewing political than they do actual sewing.
Hearing the the gatekeeping take (thank you for shutting that down BTW).... I'm like... "Dude.... It's D&D, not a security clearance.... Nothing bad will happen if someone does it a little different...."
Gatekeeping is a very cult-like thing. Like for anybody who considers gatekeeping to be serious community solution, it's probably more a sign that they themselves need to take a step back from their hobby and get some air. There's probably good forms of 'gatekeeping' (like keeping pedos out or something...), but I feel like that's only true in a 'venn diagram' sort of relation. Kicking a person out from a community for an ill-fitting/dangerous mental illness/etc could be justified much better without gatekeeping's 'no true scotsman' method. I can support options that have enough in common with gatekeeping to be lazily called that, but I'll never really support gatekeeping itself.
I mean, yeah, but I also kind of get where he's coming from. I think it's less from a standpoint of "only my way to play is correct" or some old school stuff, but rather people coming into the hobby with expectations that are wildly different from what 5he community is actually about. The comment specifically stated the community and not really the way people play. And I think he meant it more in a corporate consequences, "if you try to please everyone, you please no one" kind of way. Which I can *partially* agree with
In regards to the restriction of races to pcs. If a race doesn't fit the setting that a dm is going for in their world setting, there is absolutely no reason that the dm is obligated to allow that race. Dms wanting to build a homebrew world and story for people to enjoy is a large task. Having a heavy fantasy side in regards to races for the setting is easily able to be deducted from based on a big scrap of metal walking around, claiming to be arnold schwarznegger.
Hot Take: DMPC's can work, its just an art very hard to master. They can have the spotlight and do things of note, but the main focus should still be on the players. Thrilling Intent from the Third Wheel youtube channel shows DMPC's done right, well, and has some of my favorite character interactions between the players and this supporting cast of DMPC's. Stabbyness, the DM, also has his own separate channel from the game and he's a master of this craft. Highly recommend him and the groups he frequents.
There is one scenario that justifies DMPCs: Our group swaps out the DM role. One person runs the main campaign and the rest of us run occasional one shot or short arc adventures with the same characters. If it makes sense for them to be elsewhere, the current DM's character won't be involved - but sometimes the situation the characters were last in doesn't allow, story wise, for one member of the party to suddenly "be off doing something"
I was actually thinking of something similar... to train new DMs, an experienced one might play a Party NPC as a means to be part of the adventure, but still have some metagaming rights to help out if the new guy gets overwhelmed. But now you got me thinking of a short arc where a PC might becone the party's guide in a familiar place, like a journey back home or "the party being curious why the barbarian's so well liked in the merchant's district".
Really it depends on the purpose of a dmpc and how you define it. If it is apart of the party and has pc level, I would consider that a dmpc. I have that in my game though. I will give the party an npc native to the area or important to the question, and I will give it pc levels to make sure it doesn't die and isn't a dead weight. The npc is normally 1 to 3 levels lower that the rest of the party but still.
I think there is one other possible role for a sort of DM PC. You can have a plot line where the party is actively helping an NPC achieve a quest, with the NPC accompanying the party. Inevitably that turns the NPC into a sort of DM PC. Very essential, however, in that situation, to allow the PCs to drive the action in each session and to be the main characters of the story. It may be the NPC's quest - but it must be clear that without the PCs, the quest would have failed repeatedly.
Gm Character is a festinating topic. You introduce a way to drop off lore and act as a crutch for those weird social interactions. A another means to tell the story. one of my favorite encounters was the GM brought in a cavalier with a griffin. We were exploring a dungeon when we came across a lake with an island in the middle. the gm looked at me (as the most experience player aka party leader) and asked "Mind if I explore the island " I looked to the party shrugged and said sure. A giant creature came up and took out the Griffin we proceeded to have a boss fight.
A friend of mine (who is not into TTRPG at all) used to hear me and other friends talk about the cool stuff we would do in the game. One day, he put out the theory, that in all the rulebooks and campaign guides etc. there are nor real rules and stuff and that there even is no such thing as a TTRPG. All there is in those books are cool stories that you can recite in front of outsiders to make it seem like the coolest thing in the world. Makes kinda sense from his perspective ;-)
I made a homebrew spell to replace Counterspell in my games a while back. It's called Contested spell 4th level abjuration Casting range: 60ft Casting time: reaction Components: verbal, somatic, material(a small glass mirror) You use your willpower and strong connection to the magical forces of the world to exert your control on the weave. When someone casts a spell within 60ft of you, you can attempt to take control of the spell by beating a DC equal to 8+the spells level+the casters spellcasting ability modifier, with a check from your spellcasting ability modifier. If you succeed you may change the target of the spell, or choose the affected area for area of effect spells. If a spell requires concentration then you are considered to hold concentration on it. Higher level casting: For each level above 4th that you cast this spell, you gain a +1 to the roll, up to a +5 at 9th level Classes: Wizard, Cleric, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard My players seem to enjoy it more than counterspell, especially when they steal a powerful healing spell from the enemy casters
4:16 oh i think i know why youtube age restricted this vidoe. He made a joke and somone got offended reported him and. Bot was like ok and slammed it whith the ban hammer
Gatekeeping is a loaded word and while the take was worded horribly I think the start of it was the heart of what was intended. Not the "danger" bit. You want the people who get into a hobby to well... actually like the hobby and not some ideal of it that they try and force something to change to. Run your tables how you want them to, there's so many kinds of players and campaigns that you'll find something that fits your style. However if someone goes into an established group being disrespectful and disruptive that behavior needs to be stopped immediately.
The problem here is you are conflating "the hobby" with "my table". You want to have a cohesive group vision of what your game should be, but if you are all running LOTR and the new guy wants to run Harry Potter, that doesn't mean he's in the wrong hobby, it means he needs a table running Strixhaven. The hobby is big enough for both.
On the topic of player flight, "I shouldn't have to change my entire game due to one ability" there are consistent flying creature options at around level 5, why is your world not already prepared to deal with flying enemies? Wizards can start bullying your "melee only" world by 3rd level, come off it, and a single spell slot to wipe out an entire camp of bandits because they don't know how to use bows isn't a resource expenditure, it's an afterthought like the tip you gave the barmaid
I know probably no one wants to hear this but I feel like there should be a parrying system in the game where if you’re attacked and you can parry as say a reaction the enemy has to make a low DC D20 check (if they miss the attack on you ) say 10 or 11 plus proficiency and if they are disarmed, or may be a counter attack
Gatekeeping isn't about keeping out new people and ideas, it's about keeping out the toxic ones who don't really care about the hobby and only want to twist it to serve their own purpose
The people who scream about gate keeping being bad also tend to be the people who gatekeep the hardest. Keeping bad players away from your tables has been the core of forming healthy D&D groups from the start.
hot take, gatekeeping is good but in the sense that if you get the vibes that someone is going to be a problem player or make otherwise make other people uncomfortable it's totally fine to say "hey maybe this hobby or at least this group is not for you"
Well, for one thing there’s the “we’re listening to the community” bit they’ve been doing which seems to be skewing design into some oversimplified directions
Imo races should get the ASIs because they have a lot more abilities that are only useful for specific classes, background features are usually more general stuff. Gives you a lot more freedom to take whatever background fits best with your character flavor-wise, since a race's ASIs and unique features tend to be useful for similar classes anyway.
1:13 me when my Dm turns our party monk to an enemy, who nearly TPKd us. Granted, this was with a homebrew race that could do multiple attacks of the flurry of blows skill. Also in another campaign we did pvp against an entire enemy party of characters and got our asses handed to us. The Dragonborn guard NPCs and the enemy dragon didn’t help.
Hot take: even background ASIs are too limiting; just have them free floating like tasha's. I don't want to have to finagle my narrative backstory to fit my mechanical build
You don't though, stats are not important enough that the lowly +2/+1 from racials will matter to your build. The ONLY difference is that you might miss out on that lvl 1 20 in a stat for an 18, not a big deal.
@@Ishlacorrin not sure what edition you’re playing but in 5e even starting with an 18 is very difficult for point buy or array. The max base is 15 so it takes a +2 and a half feat to get an 18
@@hewhogoesbymanynames That is 100% why you NEVER use those stat systems. 4D6 drop the lowest every time, it's been the norm since 3rd ed and with the D20 style systems it's the only good way to run a game. Hell Even in original D&D with it's 3D6 you still had that 18 chance. Point buy and array remove one of the main parts of the game for a worse player experience all round.
@@IshlacorrinYeah, point buy is fine for video games, but feels terrible on paper. 5e does have rules for not using point buy, so this isn't even considered homebrew. I learned from my brother who started on 3rd maybe before, and we go a little further and reroll 1s so the likelihood of anything being below 10 is real low.
Agreed. They are near literally anime protagonists. All normal folk are commoners and thus 10 in most stats, meanwhile your Barbarian can lift half a ton, attack multiple times in a 6 second period, run like a moving vehicle, and shrug off attacks from beings that could nuke a city.
Thumbnail art (Orc Guy) by the amazing Miguel Regodon (Pathfinder artist!) twitter.com/miguel_regodon
For those of you who are able to donate to this amazing cause, *thank* *you.* When you donate you'll recieve a message from UA-cam on your screen (on desktop), copy and paste that link into your browser and you're good to go! We've tested everything and it is definitely working, so if you have any issues recieving the link, give it some time and please be patient.
To those who can't donate right now, no worries! We can still spread positive Mental Health by supporting each other. You are amazing!
... now I'm going to go back to bed and continue being ill. See y'all in the new year when I'm better!
Hi there! I just donated, but I wasn’t able to get the code for the Discord. There was a problem with me getting the code before the screen changed. Is there another way for me to get the code?
@@fightingfalcon777 damn thats bad luck
@@fightingfalcon777 I can track your donation, please direct message me on discord (the dnd shorts public discord). It may take a day or two for your donation to come through, but when I can confirm it, I can sort you out! Public discord link here, send me a DM! discord.gg/XZahjbx8ee
@@DnDShorts really appreciate it! Thank you, man!
I made a donation and I just wanted to personally thank you so much for supporting NAMI. As someone who has struggled with mental illness, I know how hard it is to find help sometimes. Even though I think we have a ways to go in society as far as how mental illness is regarded and treated, we have come a VERY long way. This is due in no small part to NAMI and organizations like it. They have played an integral part in raising awareness and support for those that struggle with maintaining their mental health and living happy, stable, and productive lives. IMO you have chosen a very worthy cause here and I am more than happy to support it, and I consider the chance to play a one shot with you a nice bonus! Thanks again!
Monk is the best class and you can actually change my mind, it wouldn't be that hard.
Good for you
Wow, okay duke
I run a 1 v 1 discord, Monks are pretty cracked in that meta.
if you change your mind i'll let you explain dragonborn puberty
@@revandb3438 monks are basically underpowered... until they turn on the party, and then they are horrifying
"Orcs are stronger than every other race."
*Goliath leaves angrily, smashing the door off its hinges on the way out*
Minotaurs and Centaurs: *Leaves carrying a whole ass Carriage each*
**Giff with all of that plus advantage on all Strength Checks snorts in Britishness**
**the barbarian goblin with a 20 in str taking the door on his way out**
Lomin, a half Giant half dragon laughs as he double wields his great swords and leaves.
And loxodons
"I have restraining orders from four members of critical role and they're not even the attractive ones" is one of the best things I've heard
You can tell it's a joke because that would mean only four of them are attractive
I'm not afraid... bring it! ;-)
I wanna know who. They are all so beautiful. ❤️
I love the fact that i can't really be sure about who you are talking
I'm guessing he means the guys????
"Not even the attractive ones" I think that is the hottest take in this video. The entire cast of critical role are the attractive ones.
Thank you! I was thinking the same thing.
It should be illegal for that many gprgeous people to get together and parade it around in front of us
About the "more streamers should stream session zero" I think it might be useful for the DM to either add a preamble that gives the specific questions that were discussed in session zero (not the answers) or to post it somewhere accessible to viewers. That way it helps new DMs without sacrificing the privacy of players
That's a great idea! ⚡
I do think it would be nice if streamed or in general live play D&D did have a session 0 for the viewers. One that gets across all the content f the world, any changes the DM has made to the rules, explains any homebrew they're using etc. It can get really confusing when watching D&D content and you see they're doing something not by the rules and you're unsure if it's intentional or not or there's a homebrew subclass being used and it's never explained what it does.
Regarding the "too many elf subraces" take:
YES.
We 👏🏻 need 👏🏻 more 👏🏻 dwarf 👏🏻 subraces 👏🏻 SO MUCH.
Actually agree. I am surprised that there isn't more than 2.5
While yes that would be nice, they, like elves, live for a very long time. They have the same issue as elves, and people would ask why in the world the races with the longest lifespans get the most variation.
(Though honestly, they should have made the eladrin straight up plant people.)
It seems that 1D&D is doing away with the whole subrace thing so I doubt we'll be getting many new ones before (or possibly even after) it's released.
We need more goblin and orc subraces. If it has an average lifespan, even if that's from high fatality rates, under 50 years then they're probably being forced through a ringer of adaptation.
Tieflings have a pretty good number of subraces.
The reason for it is that Moradin made them perfect. He made them the most enduring race ever, as a result they don’t need to change. Think of Dwarves as crocodiles. They haven’t needed to change for over 95 million years because they are perfect as is.
Meanwhile elves we’re accidentally made from the blood of Correlon. A god who never had a true form and was basically an god amoeba.
It honestly makes me so happy hearing all my fav D&D creator voices, love this community.
Thank you for not asking me to read that gatekeeping quote!
thank YOU for being a legend! Honor to work with you!
I think this is a spicy golden cake: gatekeeping is necessary to maintain a healthy community. Some people are total Wang rods Sparta kick him in the chest out the door then slam it in their face, if their total Wang rods. I guess they can go find another group of toxic jerks and play d&d, cuz D&D is for everyone, but I don't think anyone needs to play with a jerk
@@w4iph That's not really gatekeeping, though; that's vetting & culling toxic elements.
Gatekeeping is stuff like "D&D is only for guys," "any edition other than the one I like isn't D&D," etc.
It couldn't possibly be you, because everyone knows you just wanna sit back, relax and have some fun, because D&D is for everyone
@@solosynapse The problem is that people who whine the loudest about "gatekeeping" have gone ahead and redefined the term to that so that they still have something they can whine about. (and will redefine it again if needed)
About the races - Our DM imagines his world as being inhabited with the classic fantasy characters - like humans, elves, dwarves . I wanted to try out a tibaxi warlock that was inspired by my cat having differently colored eyes and he told me I can do so, but I would have to deal with my PC being the only Tibaxi in the world as he isn't planing on writing a tibaxi country or anything like that. I then turned that into my characters backstory and made his journey being about looking for the other Tibaxi - and eventually our DM gave in and allowed him to find them on a different plain of existence.
tabaxi... not trying to nitpicky just trying to help.
@@makaramuss OK LOL - at least I didn't call them Kiltathi as I ususally do.
I love that idea. My first thought with "only tabaxi ever" would have been a Wizard Curse lol, or maybe a Divine Test for a paladin (like "sure you're lawful good when people love you, but what about when you're a freaky cat-person?) So there are definitely many ways to balance between "player wants weird race" and "DM doesn't wanna figure out how the culture and ethics of these people play along with the world they literally just finished building"
@@achimsinn6189 Kilrathi*
I couldn't resist
So you were Tigger
"D&D dies the second they don't get new customers" man that aged like wine
I was literally about to come and comment, "Spicy Hot Take! 2:19 D&D dies when they don't get new customers."
Huh, seems like they die the millisecond they throw away their DMs and content creators then.
Ironic that if the people who made these problems were gatekept this would not have happened. I'm partially joking as there are more issues here. Though I will die on the hill that there is such a thing as healthy gatekeeping
no Dnd dies the moment it tries to be "inclusive" becuase then they try to change the game any way anyone who havent played for 30plus years wants i'm the kind of guy who bought everything Dnd ever put out and they have changed my beloved game to cater to woke idiots and thats why i hope they do die so we can go back to ADND where idoits like taht cant understand simple mathmatics invovled with calucatling THAC0 it was a mechanic that kept idoits from playing the game idoits like the kind of people that say having orc be evil race is racist as they supposedly represent black people somehow so now they gotta make a dnd editon to reflect teh woke idealogoy
@@firefox-op1ok i agree 1000%
@@firefox-op1ok People that think gatekeeping is bad are just people who feel bad about getting gatekept. I definitely gatekeep my games because a few bad players ruin the game for good players, and people dont have the right to use my time on a mediocre game that doesn't beat the fun of dishwashing.
Player vs Player characters fighting in a tournament can be fun role play/combat session when the whole party is either on a low enough level for both the players to have a chance of victory or both have similar classes with different subclasses.
Tournament or to settle inter-party conflicts. For instance, the shadow monk I tested was an aloof strategist, which would have created issues with the paladin soldier if he didn't offer to settle it in a sparing match.
My old group did this every year. We did a battle royale a few times. We also had one campaign where a lot of people were dissatisfied with their characters, so we got pulled into a dream world with new characters and we got killed by each other and our old selves
One of my funniest D&D memories was kind of PvP. I was playing Celestial Warlock, while another player was playing Fiend Warlock. We were heading towards a dragons lair. The Fiend wanted a specific magic item from the dragon's hoard, but the Celestial wanted the Fiend not to have that item.
We found the hoard, seeing the item on top of it, but the dragon managed to surprise us, and knocked the other warlock out. While we fought the dragon (and I took my while getting the other warlock back up), I sent my familiar to sneak to the hoard and pick the item.
Once the dragon was slain, we headed to the hoard, and the other warlock noticed that the item he wanted for his master was not there anymore. He had bit of a in-character tantrum, and I had to mute my mic because I had hard time not to laugh.
I love PvP in roleplaying games but I have yet to find a good way to use it in my D&D games, a tournament would work great but that's not the kind of game I run. I'll just keep pitting my friends against each other in world of darkness instead.
Possession/mind control is also always fun. give your players permission to go all out on their team and watch them enjoy the hell out of it. Probably works best in tier 2, when they aren't super squishy but don't have the really heavy stuff yet.
The one about the rogue who stole a cursed bag that only produces jabenero powder made me laugh more than it probably should have
So an infinite bag of sneezing powder? That actually sounds insanely useful
Excuse me what? Jabenero? Wtf is that???
@@brandonlee747 Habanero, the original comment in the video likely assumed that because Jalapeño starts with J, Habanero did too because a lot of English speaking people make and H sound, even though the H in Habanero is silent
Sounds like exactly the kind of dumb stuff I would put in my d&d campaign lol, though imagine coating a sword with spicy, just to inflict Psychological pain as your body feels like it's on fire from each cut
Honestly, that kind of item sounds like something my current character would use and weaponize.
It reminds me of his first weapon, a club that constantly produced soot, so that the weapon (and consequently, the wielder) would never be clean. Sounds like crap, but a few adventures and levels down the road, and it was enchanted so that in addition, in battle it could produce 30' soot clouds that obscured vision and did damage as the people who stood in it breathed in the soot. Then a few more adventures and levels down the road, it had a magical crystal mounted onto it that allowed the soot clouds to be ignited, with damage comparable to a casting of Burning Hands, three times a day.
Maybe not a god-tier weapon, but definitely a versatile and fun weapon, and even at level 15, it still sees use as a primary.
I never understood why Polearm Master + Sentinel was a problem. You invest two feats into stopping one enemy. You don't even need to use ranged enemies to counter it, you just need to send two enemies at one person.
It is a bit of a problem for the sheer dpr boost, especially on classes like paladin who rely on hitting a lot. Also enemies very rarely actually are able to have the knowledge and ability necessary to coordinate and counter such a combo and sending two enemies doesn’t even actually counter it. Plus you can do some very nasty combos (with the Oath of the Open Sea for example)
Or send one enemy with 10ft reach and it doesn't even stop them lmao, dragons, devils and demons all come to mind with a lot of them having 10ft reach attacks, or really any large beast like a mammooth or trex.
@@crystallxix1493 remember, just send a 10ft reach enemy and the combo basically just means they get a little bit more damage in, assuming they hit
@@crystallxix1493 polearm master has all of the DPR boost in it, and it is only really a problem before Extra attack comes in (Yes it outdamages sword and shield by a mile, but that is sword and shield being underpowered). The enemies also don't know what spells the wizard has, can they stand in a line, or a circle, well, depends if the wizard has lightning bolt or fireball prepared. That a martial has 1 trick that can surprise the monsters, after spending 2 feats on it, is not a bad thing.
Even enemies who can't coordinate will still get to the polearm user some times, because he won't hit every time. Also enemies with reach 10 feet, just don't care about the sentinel part. Sure some enemies are going to have a really bad time, but that is okay, you spend 2 feats on it.
Yeah excatly. I like having well rounded-up builds as player characters in my games, it usually means I get to throw more fun at them when it comes to combat.
Also, if you are a LE DM, (and your players know it) you always just be like; You are suddenly sucked into a natural conduit you encountered into the wild. *You are now, in, *rolls* Abyss!*
I always tell my players, “Sexual encounters will be faded to black. If you ABSOLUTELY INSIST on roleplaying it, I will make sure it is the most awkward and shameful experience of your life.”
unfortunately, some players want that
I have some that are *really* into cringe-comedy and I have to make sure they're in the same group instead of mixed in with the others
I typically agree with this---role play in sexual encounters can be fun, but a TTRPG is typically the wrong venue unless your group is very special indeed.
That said, depending on the campaign, the important bits can be in the pillow talk afterwards--that can be critical, especially if you're going for a fantasy James Bond type of feel, or a gritty fantasy version of Sin City or any number of other kinds of milieus. It's a great way to establish underworld contacts or to develop a reach into high society if you're dealing with a courtesan, or your character happens to be one (think a rogue based on Inara from Firefly). Sex and lust are core drives and vices, and that can be utilized in a game if care is taken on why it's being introduced and how it advances the game story. These are great contacts for PCs if handled well.
Some people are into that.
And I'm afraid that as Baldur's Gate 3 introduces more people to D&D, many are going to _expect_ it to be suggestive at a minimum, and for some they'll want to push the lewdness further.
Fun thing happened. My old dm ran a campaign that did death differently. Everytime you’d fall to 0 hit points, instead of going into death saves you’d encounter “the ferryman”. There you would have to trade some kind of magical item in exchange for your life back. Thankfully, I never got there with my hp but there were some times that worried me.
That sounds cool. My idea is that the Adventurers are Researchers of the Arcane and other paths so they can forge things that revive them.
Clone up a improved body, kill a monster and pay Death with it soul, unmoor yourself from life and lose abit of your soul each time you need to possess a creature or object.
Thank you so much to the amazing UA-camrs who appeared in this video, and everyone who commented under the original post! I'm exaggerating for comic effect a lot in this video, even if we don't agree on a D&D opinion, that's cool! Different tables need different things!
hear me out but rouges make the best tank class in DnD.
What channels made an appearance? I recognized some voices but not all
This was amazing!!! All of you are epic!! Thanks for making this
I love seeing this collab and i hope there will be more of them
I'm new to DnD and would love to know who these other creators are. Maybe in the description or something?
That critical role restraint order had me fkn rollin’
One wonders who the 4 "not attractive' ones are :)
@@alexgruel9932 trick question. None of them are unattractive.
@@alexgruel9932 right... Like all of them are hot... So idk lmao
@@Anonymous_Individual but which are the 10s and which are the 9.9s?
@@coolgreenbug7551 another trick question. There are no 9.9s. 10s across the board.
Thanks for supporting those with mental health issues. As a vet with physical and mental health impairments D&D has been a saving grace for me. You are amazing and enjoy the content you publish.
I believe the gatekeeping guy was trying to say “the people who try to change the community”
everyone changes the game for themselves, but there’s that special jerk who makes a change and expects everyone else who plays to follow their lead like they’re a messiah despite having played only one game
I like to think the gatekeeping guy was just memeing
Maybe he meant gatekeeping neckbeards.
And people who say "neckbeard" actually mean the mentally disabled.
I kinda feel this way about people trying to change things to not fit established lore. Like, good and evil are actual literal cosmic forces in the setting, and they try to argue that its morally wrong for it to be that way based on real world context, then shame WotC for portraying a fantasy world as being fundamentally different in a way that makes them uncomfortable.
My dnd group has 3 DMs at the party and we switch it when the current DM wants to play a character. It leads to amazing stories that connect with different perspectives on the overall story, but we make sure that it doesn't go too far off so that the next DM is unable to do anything.
However your group made that work should be annexed into the 6E DMG.
I agree some with the elven longevity v. diversity one, though I sorta feel the range of subspecies for elves reflects more on how their environment influences them more strongly than most other species, being of the feywilds and all. Even eladrin tend to change just on their moods and seasonal vibes. :o
Yea but at the same time it's not just about genetics, there was magic fuckery and gods interfering
@@realdragon yup, that's the whole thing with the feywild and its residents. its adaptation bamfed up on magical meth. Even subspecies that don't live there anymore still came from the fey so it makes sense they'd shift to better fit their new environments quicker than more material-based species, just as it makes sense those like eladrin who still live there are far more mutable than other elves
Funny thing about that, most elves we have in 5e aren't from the feywild. that's pretty much just the eladrin
@@zoesequeira5388 eladrin are the ones who stayed and are still there, but from what I recall faerun elves ancestors all came from the feywild first
Also mutations are actually MORE likely if there's higher genetic similarity. Look at the Solomon Islands for reference in humans.
Re: Session 0: when it comes to "I'm uncomfortable with this" you can brush by that with "we used this form to outline what everyone is comfortable with. Like for instance, I have on here that I don't like spiders. We're going to avoid spiders" (or another consenting example of it) and then go on with the rest of what happens in a session 0. Like talking about the character backstory, and "I want to explore what happened to my characters sister, what my character remembers is XYZ, but is that actually what happened?" Etc
They could also, if done in a video format rather than stream, simply edit that part out.
"Outsiders are not a danger to D&D."
*Hasbro:* Hold our beer.
I had a DMPC for the first game I DM’d, but it was mostly because I only had two players and I was worried they were going to get stomped (TPK’d) in the oneshot module I was running. It ended up working pretty well as I remember it. It took forever sure but we still managed it in one day and everyone had fun. Not to say it’s always the best idea all the time, but it probably won’t bring death and ruin to your game unless you do so on purpose.
same for me only had 3 players and none of them wanted a healer, so my dmpc was mentor from the guild who apon request from the characters to train them until they where strong enough to pass the guild trail but ended up leaving early as another person joined so the dmpc was just a healbot that chilled in the background during fights and aloud me to help them out as they where new players to teach them mechanics of their classes.
That is exactly how I use it, too. I hate how dismissive he is about it. Like there could be no occasion where it would be beneficial for everyone and "if you want to play just go find others to dm for you" is easy for people to say that have time to waste trying group after group online until they find one they work in. Some of us have to make due with what we have.
@@DarkAtamis a lot of his takes come from the POV of someone that has never been unable to get a full size group together. As the once forever DM I had 2-3 friends that wanted to play all the time, and... That was it. Good to see how much the hobby has expanded
I was in a similar situation except it wasn't a one shot. It was LMoP. It worked then because I had a party of two with a third who was joining eventually (they were constantly busy so they just never got to it). It's a tightrope though because the stereotype of the op dmpc who is one shotting all the enemies because they're level 20 first session and the focal point of the game is probably why most people say don't do it. That and you slow the game up a bit, but with 2 other players it might not be noticable
I used to have only my two cousins, and I played while being the DM. They liked it, but because of one we don't play anymore. (Not his fault. He just won't play anymore) So now it is just me and my brother, and it is much easier, and more fun for both of us if I am also a character.
I like how many people I recognized reading things in this video. Real neat to see such a huge collaborative effort.
Also, uncensored Dingo swearing is a treasure I was not expecting to find
I began to realize he got other d&d channels to read the hot takes as soon as a heard Chaz (from Mann Shorts) at 2:52
Edit: it’s funny to hear Dingo swear without it being covered by the duck sound
I really liked this as well!!
@Skallagrim_ytFake
@@Sirdeathvidshis albums are also phenomenal
Dingo swearing is so ducking great!
The reaction to the gatekeeping take slayed me.
You mean your character, right?
*Looks at Woke WOTC which was starting to alienate players before the KleptOGL drove everyone with any sense away.*
Um... maybe consider that "new players" aren't bad... it's the new players who want to change the game fundamentally and won't stop until they do that for the entire game that ARE a problem.
I have a fun moment to share. Regarding dmpcs, back when I was running tomb of annihilation I kinda had a npc join the party for story reasons and would roleplay her as a pc but when it came to combat situations I just printed out a statblock and let the players handle her. She kinda became an advisor and healer for the party and it worked great for our group. Turns out they kept gathering followers and had two pets a shield guardian and a this glorified hireling by the end of it.
I think the thing with mele/spell caster balance works, especially in dungeon crawls.
The mele characters are useful in helping the spellcasters preserve their big spells for the big encounters. The mele are carrying bulkload of the encounters for the spell casters.
In the big encounters the mele are also the wall enemies have to cut through to get to the squishy spell casters. Sure, there are ways for enemies to get through a mele formation defense, but that's also part of the fun.
Yeah casters are only really OP if the DM runs only 1-3 combat encounters per long rest. The game is balanced around 6-8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests throughout the day. It also makes warlocks less reliant on Eldritch Blast.
It doesn’t even need to drag out the session. The adventuring day can be split across multiple sessions.
I LOVE that you got some of my favorite D&D UA-camrs together to help with this video!
In terms of gatekeeping, I think it makes *sense* in 2 cases.
1) Gatekeeping the creative team. there have been multiple instances I can point to where people who activly Dislike or even hate a product have ended up incharage of it, and have ended up making descisions that Prettymuch everyone, unanimously, have agreed are bad. this hasnt happened too much in TTRPGS (aside from the orc thing, which is still super weird), but Industrys TV and comics are filled with it. Case and point, its been reported by multiple sources that the showrunners of the Witcher Hate the IP and original source, which was a huge contributing factor to henry Cavil leaving the role.
2) Gatekeeping your table in particular if someone joins and wants everyone else to play their way. This I am Calling gatekeeping but its really more of a case of someone being rude and bringing down the mood for everyone else. A group of people should not have to bend the way they prefere to play for the whims of an individual, and in the inverse, if you want everyone your playing with to change for you, maybe it would be better to find a different group. Tabletop is an inherently social event, so I think its important that everyones wants and needs are heard at the table, However if your joining mid game, or if your asking a long running group that you are new too to change something fundamental about their campaigns its probably better for everyone that you just find someone else to play with, so everyone is happier in the long run.
TLDR: Gatekeeping the entire hobby full stop is dumb. Gatekeeping specific small portions of it *can* (key word CAN) be a good idea or even necessary.
I'm surprised this doesn't have more likes.
I often introduce interesting guide NPCs into my games for my players to interact with and on one occasion particularly the players encouraged that guide to join their quest as a mascot/squire giving him gear, training him, encouraging him to become a hero. In some cases players may take advantage of this and use NPCs as trap fodder or goblin bait but in this case they made the adventure less about them and more about him. He was the hero in the story and they absolutely loved it. They got to play Obi-Wan and Han Solo type mentors and the NPC became Luke. Whenever he shows up they get excited and RP telling stories of their exploits and even ask if he has time to help with a quest. I get to play and my players force me to do so but they are the ones making all the important decisions. He never solves the puzzles never hints at mysteries but does on occasion help with important skill checks. One of the players even jokes about adopting him.
I think the issue here is various definitions of DMPC verses NPC in the PC group run by the DM. It is not black and white, but a spectrum. I have run such characters for over 40 years and it works well. One has to be careful to let the PCs make the major decisions, but the DMPC can give their opinion. This can be extremely helpful when the Players seem stuck on what to do or a track of thought that will lead to disaster.
This was awesome hearing so many wonderful, familiar voices in one place. Cheers to you Sir, and all of your talented and generous peers.
"Why the f*ck do you care what other people do [at their table]?" This statement is the golden question that could be used in _much spicier_ topics 😧
Because people that say they don't are lying. You would not accept dnd to be played by nazis or the kkk.
Sure thing, like cooking meat past medium rare just ruins it an is wrong. Right? Right?
Eh. I've always found this stance to be hypocritical and a bit short-sighted. If you play or meet people at a game shop, you will probably end up interacting with most if not all regulars there. If you exclude someone from your table because you don't like them for any reason at all, that person is fairly likely to not show up at the shop again if their exclusion was a dramatic event. Or if most people at the shop think a certain way, that effectively excludes everyone they don't like in your local neighborhood from playing D&D.
To put it another way: People who are "against" gatekeeping suddenly change their tune if a guy in Klan robes or covered in human shit shows up at the game shop. "Just find another table" is a dishonest response that kicks the can down the road. You've excluded them from your table with no knowledge of whether or not that person is even capable of finding another table. Everyone gatekeeps because it is human nature; not all humans are compatible. It's silly to deny that you do it or claim that you can stop it from happening.
To put it an even simpler way: Everyone in these comments, including the video creator, is trying to gatekeep the executives at Hasbro and WotC from this hobby at the moment.
They're NOT doing it at their own tables.
They're trying to get in on all groups and into the staff of the game company itself (and ARE on the WOTC staff) to change it into Politically Correct drek.
Remember: WOTC is having financial difficulty because of things like the "race R Species" change, and other attempts at controlling people's thoughts instead of letting them just play the game.
@@CrizzyEyesGood response. Everyone says gatekeeping is a terrible thing until the unfavorable people walk through the door.
I mean some level of gatekeeping does prevent gate crashing.
But like minimal. Setting boundaries and expectations for your table is gatekeeping. But like a good kind.
Most people don't realize that there is a line between npc party member and DMPC. Because of the size of my table, I have several npc party members that come and go as needed based on the desires and needs of the party and the mission. The line comes in remembering that they are just another tool in the players toolbox. An npc thief is there to disarm traps, locate secret doors, pick locks, and serve as an extra body during fights.. They are not there to serve as your mouthpiece, or steal the spotlight from the players, unless the players want them more involved in the current adventure.
Rangers will always be the best class
Finally! Rise my conclave brethren!
No rangers are the best "species" anything else is just classism.
Nah Im monk gang
@@unnatural4 Airbender? Firebender? Or water bender? Or dirt Bender?
@@hopelane9773 Haha yes! With the power of bees on our side we are unstopabble!
I just keep grinning from excitement after hearing all of the amazing people participating on production of this video. Thank you very much ya all, collaborations like this feel awesome to see. ❤️
As to the player balance issue, I think when people say that Wizards are "overpowered" what they really mean is that it feels like the Wizard is playing their own game while the martials all have to work as a team. People rarely call the Cleric OP, despite the fact that it is a pretty OP class, because many of the Cleric's abilities involve interaction with the rest of the team. Especially protection domain clerics have to spend their time working with the team, not just hurling fireballs into the middle of a group. I think team-focused adjustments to magic could make Wizards feel less OP witthout robbing them of much power. Like, instead of Fireball, maybe your wizard can create an explosion around an ally. That encourages the Wizard to also have support spells like Haste to help get the ally into ideal position, then use a magic spell which changes a basic attack spell into one that encourages teamwork and utilization of the full breadth of your abilities.
When they took metamagic away from everyone but sorcerers, they made spellcasting less team oriented.
I agree the problem isn’t wizards are OP it’s wizards are self servingly OP. Especially late game how is the fighter supposed to keep up in combat when the wizard is literally altering reality and dropping proverbial nukes
I think the problem then is just that your spell casters aren't taking any team playing spells. Which could mean that your encounters are too easy from the spell casters' perspective if they can just throw fireballs the whole fight. You just need to incentivize the behavior to change somehow with how the fights happen.
Morale of the story is that unless it’s egregious to the point of removing fun, then people are more willing to put up with something being OP if it’s supportive.
SECOND POST BUT: I had to counter the Elf one. That is a Milky Trash take. Elves, as conceptualized in DnD (and Forgotten Realms as its the primary setting) from Mordenkinens Tome of Foes, are a Fey descended race. Their original form was something incredibly malleable, something that made the 4 seasonal forms of Eladrin look like they were slow and set in stone. They were less Person and more Thoughts that Could Take Shape, Sometimes as a Person.
But when Lolth got all rebelly and took the Drow with her, the elves, especially the ones that followed and settled into the Prime Material, lost a lot of that feyness. Drow are the least Fey, and most material, being closest to Lolth, while the various environmental ones are much much closer to Feywild elves. They are very much products of that early generation of malleable Elves that settled in the area.
The generic High Elf though is that middle ground between Set in Stone Drow and Environmentally influenced Regional Elf. So they were once NOT animals that were affected by evolution and only technically turned into animals that are affected by evolution well after they adapted to their locations via non evolutionary means.
Great point!
The problem with that is that elves' ToF lore isn't the original lore, which not only means all the fuckton of subraces predates it, but also that it wasn't thought out as a justification to that. Also, the Material Plane elf subraces are clearly distinct and not at all malleable. Sun elves cannot turn into moon elves, just as grey elves cannot turn into wood elves.
You made this point better than I could.
I'm surprised the Avariel (winged elves) haven't been added to 5e yet considering all the races with flight we have now, they're mentioned in a side bar in SCAG, but no actual player options.
@@drakegrandx5914 Some of that *is* mentioned in SCAG though. And OP is not saying that the subraces turn into each other, it's saying that the diversity was from before, and being in the material plane "lock" them into one form.
(you know, their whole last sentence. "So they were once NOT animals that were affected by evolution and only technically turned into animals that are affected by evolution well after they adapted to their locations via non evolutionary means.")
@@GKplus8 The point still stand that, as they were originally created, the elves subraces are not meant to be credited to the "malleability of the first elves"; so, unless you take SCAG/ToF's lore specifically into consideration, it's still vey akward to have so many elf subraces in the world in comparison to dwarves, not to talk about gnomes and kenku.
My Hot take: I believe it is better to homebrew a campaign for new DMs that way they can make their own worlds, rules, choose what you want to allow and not be concerned about messing with an already existing world. Yeah it could be overwhelming but I say they would learn more through this than modules
D&D started out that way, and I agree that it helps build DM skills. Plus you never have to struggle with understanding what the module writer intended, or fitting the module's weird dynamics to your table's needs.
I think a mix is best but I see where you’re coming from
Even more if you are DMing for a more experienced player than you or a player that know more about the lore of DnD than you. Making your own world avoid a lot of contradictions and problems at the table.
I did this and it's... interesting.
That's a personal thing, surely? For some people it would be too far outside their comfort zone, and could end up putting them off DMing entirely
I like how you got other content providers to voice the questions. 😊
re: elven subraces.
before elves were tricked into physical forms they existed flitting through all the different planes. then an event occurred in which they took physical forms wherever in the multiverse they were, taking on aspects of the plane they were in. so there should be at least one subrace of elf for every iteration of every plane in the multiverse (except the ones where their creation occurred in a completely different manner)
thanks for all the great vids shorty :)
Agreed. I think he forgot that Elves' entire thing is that they are sort of being "punished" for taking on a defined form when it wasn't what Corellon intended. If they weren't tricked they'd be a group of cool Omega shifters. Because humaniod definitely wasn't a limitation for them in the old days.
Nah, I'm cool with fewer elves. Lol
That sort of depends on the setting.
I don't mind them, though. If they don't fit in a setting they can always be removed or limited at the group's digression.
Sure, that justifies WotC making then more and more stupidly broken as time goes on. Let's give them free proficiencies that they get to choose every day. Oh, we forgot about weapon proficiencies, let's give them that choice on top of a skill proficiency of their choice that they can change on a whim. Oh hell, free misty step too because why the fuck not? Astral elves were a mistake and I'm glad elves went back to vanilla for One Dnd. Dragonborn didn't deserve that thougg
@@S.Grundy I mean they already got a ton of free weapon proficiencies anyway. And skills if we're being honest. Tiefling gets shit on as being the build a bear race, but Elves were always the king.
With respect, the Gate Keeping comment was very good advice.
True, the original comment wasn't expressed the optimal way it might, but you also interpreted it in the worst way possible.
Wanting to keep something the same way as it was when you came into something (be in D&D or anything else), shows respect and love for the thing you found to be enjoyable. If you want to radically change it, then you didn't actually care for it to begin with (which is a different thing entirely than breaking certain fantasy tropes at someone elses table that you wouldn't at yours, and I wish you hadn't pretended otherwise).
The "don't play weird races" take feels like a personal attack. One of my favorite characters i play is a rabbit-folk paladin named Natalia Hop that rides a drake into combat and wields a lightning spear. I love her.
I have a mixed view on that one. If the world has them already or has a reasonable way for them to be there, great! Do it. But I dislike when someone expects a GM to jimmy something into their setting that isn't already there.
My favorite character name ever was a Harengon named Claire O’Hare
It often causes issues for DMs in the roleplay sense.
Like, how do you expect real people would react to a rabbit woman named Hop? There would absolutely be jokes.
Or when someone plays a race that lore wise would be hated, but expects to be treated normally, like racism is a thing with just humans on earth, imagine how bad it would be if other species that were actually mainly evil existed.
Also if people saw a drake just out somewhere, I'd say the reasonable reaction would be to cast fireball first and ask questions later.
The thing is if you're playing an offical modual you don't really have an excuse why it can't be in there. @@shiva0
@@SirDankleberry As a GM I would allow races endemic to the setting said module was in. Depending on the setting I may allow some flubbing but probably not. And here's the thing... I don't need an excuse aside from that's not how I want to run my game.
As a player I ask questions about the game and it's setting, tone, and what the GM is looking to do and make a character based on that. I don't come in with an idea I HAVE to play and try to brow beat the GM into letting me. That's some special unique snowflake ass garbage.
Personally I only ever restrict races when I can't fit them into my setting. In my campaigns case, I limited UA, Ravnica, and Theros. The first one for obvious reasons, but the other two because I had no idea how to fit them into a chainsaw man, and jjk inspired campaign (at least in theme). But when one of my players wanted to try the homebrewed Channeler class (he and I both love Jojo) it was an easy addition because of the "open" lore the maker came up with.
Essentially, you do you as a DM and just have a good reason. If you really don't understand how to include a race into a story, be honest about it.
My take is: The race you want to play does not exist in my world. That does not mean you can not play that race, but you are not that race. Nobody living in the game world knows what you are; there is only you and maybe your clan.
I have a friend who plays in my game, and when we started he started complaining that he had wanted to take the best character options from every book, l and that if I didn't allow every legal option from every published Official book that I was unfairly restricting players.
My outlook is that I am running a specific world. Many of the options from setting books simply aren't in my world. I don't see a problem with barring things that don't fit your world. Heck, The new Dragonlance book even shows that this outlook is OK. several of the options in the new Dragonlance states that a prerequisite for access is to be playing in a Dragonlance specific campaign.
DM should be able to state what they are allowing in their campaign. Having a specific setting is not an attempt to limit player creativity... It's the in game equivalent to running Star Trek and not allowing people to play Jedi and Wookies or making the Federation encounter and come into conflict with the Empire. While not theoretically impossible, it's certainly not the kind of request from a player that a DM has to feel obligated to comply with.
@@johnevans5782 The Wars/Trek example is the exact one I give to my players regarding establishing a sensical framework for a campaign. Also, don't bother reading the Monster Manual. I rarely use it and change whatever I use anyway.
@@johnevans5782 I completely agree with you. A tabletop RPG is supposed to be a collaborative experience. If one party, in this case your player, came in expecting to have it all their way or it would be unfair they're misunderstanding how to play the game fundamentally.
You, as the DM, set the ground rules for your campaign, that you put together through hard work and if that's not okay to the players, they're free to seek another DM. In the end, it's a little bit of give and take.
My take on DM Player Characters is that I like having NPCs fight alongside the party, but I do it for specific reasons and follow certain rules:
1) They’re kinda there to be an in-world “direction” for the party. Lost? Can’t follow the story? Not sure where to go next? Ask the NPC! They can kinda guide the party through our relatively short sessions if need be.
2) they’re temporary, only showing up for a single quest, and they only really speak or interject when spoken to.
3) I try to keep them from getting the spotlight or taking glory from the players.
For the most part, I try to keep the NPC to a minimum, and mainly include as “friends” the party has made along the way. It can be fun whenever the party finds themselves in a bind and can call upon their old friends for help or advice. Also, these characters can die and make a more emotional impact, kinda substituting that “player death impact” without actually killing someone’s favorite PC. My main word of advice to anyone trying for this is to temper the balance of these PCs and make sure they don’t take over the fight, and make their turns simple and fast.
Yep my main goal for npcs is to make the players shine either through role play or combat
I'm the person who wrote the spicy take XD I kept it vague to keep with the spicy hot take theme, but in my comment back then I explained how the DMPC is essentially just an NPC that also has an inventory and actually gets their subclass and features as opposed to just using the generic stat blocks like "archer" and such. They don't make any decisions for the party and otherwise act as an NPC. I've had to do this a few times when my table has gone down to too few players.
My DM does this since I’m the only one in that time slot.
My own opinion on DMPCs: I think WoTC has actually implemented a way to integrate "quasi-DMPCs" into the game fairly well, mostly in the form of "sidekicks". Hel, we've even had mechanics in earlier editions in hiring bodyguards to help out players. The struggle for DMs at that point is keeping track of all of the extra work during encounters with additional friendly NPCs.
I have a take:
There should be multi-type monsters. For example, a flesh slime is considered an ooze, but it could be an undead-ooze. A flesh colossus is a construct, but it could be and undead-construct. A mimic is a monster, but it could be a monstrous-aberration, because honestly I think mimics match aberrations more so than monsters.
Spicy trash take over. (:
14:20 Absolutely disagree. The player who plays her "horny bard" has just as much right to have fun and play her character as she wants as the others.
And no, it's not necessarily played "for a joke", and playing a seductress can allow us to address deep themes such as consensuality or autonomy. On a more meta level, it can allow a roleplayer to create an idealized version of herself, where she is more confident and entrepreneurial than she ever will be in real life.
Damn, seriously! Which is more unhealthy: a bard who uses her charms and has consensual sex, or a guy who uses the "Command" spell with words like... "Betray", "Blaspheme" (we have paladin/cleric), or a simple “Grovel” with the aim of decapitating its target on the ground?
Damn, carry a sack of many small items, dump them out and Command the target to "Count" them. It doesn't function very differently than "Grovel" but a lenient DM may rule that a less intelligent creature would also drop their weapons and begin counting the object by hand...
These are just examples, but damn, I find spells like "charm monster" or "charm person" way more problematic than a bard seducing a guy in a tavern because she danced and tried to find a sweetheart for the night !
Even immobilization spells are... not good, morally speaking.
In any case, it is abnormal to consider that a player "who doesn't like the way he plays" has priority over her.
It is absolutely abnormal to consider that this player is morally justified in depriving her of her gaming pleasure.
Some like to throw fireballs and annihilate the local wildlife.
Others like sword fights, or ax fights, dismembering their opponents in a rain of blood and entrails...
Still others like to invade the mind of their target, who under influence find themselves the equivalent of automatons...
But that’s “good”, it’s “funny”.
On the other hand, the bard who has committed the irreparable by seducing with her talents and her natural charisma, that's "not good", that's "forbidden".
Seriously. Ask yourself questions.
If her being "naughty" is a problem for one player, but not for others or the DM, I think the problem is easily identifiable.
From a purely ethical and moral standpoint, the only "in-game" sexual interactions that should be problematic are those that would be illegal in real life.
And in a game where creatures demonstrate sensitivity and desires similar to humans...
A bard seducing a creature with any sentience similar to that of a human can be considered normal.
Worst D&D Advice Giver: "Well, Of Course I Know Him. He's Me."
The gatekeeping, for the whole of DND, I’m with you on
But when a new person enters your group and DOES try to change the way everyone else in the group plays to fit them, THAT is when I feel like that philosophy is valid
There’s a group out there for every play style
Instead of trying to mold the first one you come across to fit yours, go out and find a group with the same play style
There’s a huge difference there
This. All this
That's not gatekeeping, though. That is just a mismatch in what the 1 player wants vs. the group
I absolutely agree, but I feel like this is less gatekeeping and more just vetting your players.
@@WumboGuy I gatekeep my table, it's what I do
Outsiders aren't the problem. If better gatekeeping had been performed within WoTC over the past 10 years, the focus would be on the actual material rather than idiotic retcons and word substitutions. Nothing was ever stopping people from having cuddly orcs and drow who just want to be your friends, RPing as baristas in a magic school, or using the word "species" if that's the proper fit for your table. But when the weirdos took over the corporate controls, now they're forcing those, as well as every inane complaint from the twitter idiots, upon others as the new default and THAT is where the problem lies. Just waiting for someone to find the word "dungeon" to be problematic because of the historical actions of the Spanish Inquisition or perceived disparagement of the BDSM community, and suddenly they're gonna have to change the name.
I donate to MIND as I am in the UK
But kudos for supporting a mental health charity as it is still a very overlooked area of funding needs to aid and promote help worldwide
Regarding gatekeeping: As with all communities, a small amount of gatekeeping is necessary, to prevent them from becoming cesspools of negativity.
Ability score improvements should have just been what they established in Tasha's- you pick where the +1/+2 go based on what you want. If I want to play a farmer who becomes a Wizard, I should be able to put my bonus in Int instead of having it stuck in Str/Con. Maybe he's a scrawny farmer and not as strong as everyone else, so he started picking up magic to overcome that in his work.
Backgrounds should be an additional proficiency and maybe, like, a relevant feat or something. And species should be things that are species-specific like orcs' carrying strength or dragonborns' breath weapon.
Gatekeeping is important, without gate keepers to keep the gate open how else would new people get in?
On the subject of flight, I don't think it's a big problem in the combat pillar. Where it can really get out of hand is the exploration pillar. Having both been and DMed over a flying player, it can be really easy to circumvent a lot of obstacles, especially if you dare have an adventure in any environment other than "cramped underground cave."
Good point.
Strong winds can stop that but also it would be weird if there was strong winds everywhere.
@@octavianpedigree5866 It would be unfortunate if there was a bunch of enemies with a net or two waiting at the other side at some point. Not every time, but like once or twice.
Your existence is a blessing. This video completely turned my day around. You my friend, are like a breath of crisp fresh mountain air.
3:15. On one hand, I can relate. It is so hard to find stats and information about so many races to the point where it's overwhelming. Also, you might have an idea for a world where a certain race doesn't fit that well (warforged). On the other hand, I absolutely agree with being creative. Play whatever race you want.
My party just finds it easier to play the races found in the players handbook and Volo's guide. It's a comprehensive list with awesome options and we have easy access to them. In the end, do what you feel like doing. Put in the extra mile or keep it simple, whatever you like.
12:40 personally the compromise I make for this type of thing that my players like is making the DMPC your "Guy in the Chair" who gives you info if you ask and gives you a general direction to head, while also being funny and entertaining enough to not get annoying. Granted it's not even technically a DMPC, but it's also not just a random NPC in the world since they're also the one who keeps the party on their way.
That's basically a form of the group patron rules in tasha's
I agree with your take on the ASI's so heavily. Background ASIs are my absolute favourite thing that has been changed in OneDND and I'm implementing it in my games the moment I get to run one. It makes much more sense to me and also inspires more interesting traits in the species from a design standpoint.
Straight up, I love your videos, and this is no exception. I super enjoyed and was genuinely surprised by all the cameos of the amazing D&D UA-camrs!
I really like that you have other UA-cam creators reading these for you. Well done, as usual.
Counterspell - Thinks back to Critical role, C1: casts life threatening spell against pc (not even knocked unconscious, would have killed) counter spell *saves life*. Dm counter spell that. Player: counter spell.
And this is why it's great. It builds drama, uses up not only reactions, but spell slots, and just adds so much f you to both sides.
>let your players design themselves however they want
Have you hear the good word of GURPS yet? I could write a book about all the crazy character concepts my players have come up with. Sentient Space Hamster Diplomat with Heat Vision not only makes sense in context, it doesn’t even crack the top 5
It was amazing to see, or rather hear, a bunch of our favorite UA-camrs collaborating to make this video!! Awesome!
"Outsiders aren't a danger to DND"
led to
"A cleric player might take the healer feat, and in the middle of the fight, discover it's around healer's kits, not spells" being the reason for changing healer from healer's kit to just buffed number on spell.
A justification given for the ODD feat changes, is the example of a player not reading their feat for what is extremely likely to be an *entire week*. They're literally changing the game going forward (and the given support!) to accommodate "This game is too hard to understand (literally read one paragraph over an entire week) can we change the rules". I'd rather they base their changes on people with functioning literacy?
As someone who started playing during the 3.5e era where rules were a lot more explicit in what you could or couldn't do but were also written in a very complex way requiring understanding of a lot of internal terminology, I find 5e's "streamlined" approach to rules to give a lot of leeway to DMs thereby discouraging players from learning RAW.
" They're literally changing the game going forward (and the given support!) to accommodate "This game is too hard to understand (literally read one paragraph over an entire week) can we change the rules". I'd rather they base their changes on people with functioning literacy?"
The game is in fact complex, and as it becomes appealing to a wider audience it's bound to attract people who can't understand it. Here certain parts of the D&D community fall apart because it becomes that tables responsibility to ensure the person you're playing with understands the rules, or decide the player isn't worth the trouble and drop him.
If we pretend we're the company trying to sell D&D books and rules, and we notice we have a trend among consumers complaining that the merchandise is too complex, then what we do is make it simpler - we sell more shit, make more money, fatter bottom line.
In the end D&D has become a business and as such, the product will adapt to demand. AD&D or 3.5e-like rule structure will not see the light of day in a new format, and it's going to be up to each table to pick and choose which rules they use, and probably house-rule 40% of the RP related rules (keep management, logistics, servants, housing, business, etc.) or use a different system that suits them.
Shit happens man, we deal or we don't.
One of the biggest thing I always think about is where the line between a DM-PC and a NPC is. Cause the new source book, the Divine connection and the Out of the Abyss to some degree has characters tagging along the players.
Yeah I don’t like arguing over DMPC because it’s definition can get very blurry once you move past the most egregious example.
I legitimately hate DMPCs.
I kinda agree with the “too many races” take. I’m not trying to have my game look like an episode of regular show here.
2:19 "DnD dies the second they don't get new customers"
Yeah, that seems pretty relevant with the BS going on with Hasbro and WotC at the moment
Dude! I listen to almost every channel that "guest features" on the vid. Love it!
This was just a fun video. I loved all the extra guests. I was able to get most of them, BUT not all and this is a fun way to be introduced to new channels. Thanks to every one who took part in the fun.
As an older player that has played with many, many groups over the years, the "horny bard" thing is a modern concept. Back in the day in pretty much every group I played in the bard would be used for free rooms at the inn, getting in to see the queen, calming down the charging wolf pack, etc. I think it is a comment about our society as a whole that it evolved into "have sex with everyone".
Every 2nd edition player I see is filled with horny bard stories, so maybe you just didn’t encounter it
@smokeydabear4525A key difference is the stereotype is "I seduce whatever is in front of me because my charisma is the only thing I've read on my sheet" and "I SUMMON BLUE EYES ABYSS DRAGON, THEN HAVE SEX WITH IT, I END MY TURN"
And what is wrong with that?! It could easily be in character. Let people just roleplay as they want. What if you want to play a sort of casanova seductor-bard? Or a warlock of succubus demon-lord, or a cleric of pleasure cult? Why the **** it shold be shunned?
@smokeydabear4525 Just find better DM and party, that comfortable with such staff and sex-positive
@@agat882 Well, I think that people who express their sexual frustration via roleplaying with their friends REALLY need to work out whatever it is that they have going on in their lives instead of focusing on games.
Also, roleplaying those types of encounters with your DM/etc is kinda weird. And this is crappy roleplaying:
player - I seduce the dragon
dm - ok roll for it
player - 20! I seduced the dragon!
dm - ok the dragon is seduced.
No DM likes to act out seduction scenes with their players. Well, maybe some DMs that have issues like to do it, but I don't know any of those.
One and only problem I have with new races is that as a dm I need to do the work to fit them into my setting and sometimes it's a bit of a pain. But if a player is game for shouldering a bit of that and brainstorm some lore it might be even more fun :)
6:20 I agree with you about counterspell. At the table that I run, there's a gentleman's agreement of promising not to overuse it which has helped keep the game healthy. To me, the problem with counterspell is that it's not interactive at all and that's why it sucks when it is used on you. At my table, I made counterspell more interactive by homebrewing to become a contested ability check and my players liked it a lot more. I handle counterspell like this:
- Reaction and range is the same.
- The one using counterspell handles the roll like this: D20 + Arcana modifier + spell casting modifier + level of spell slot used for counterspell. If they roll higher, the counterspell works.
- The one being counterspelled handles the roll like this: D20 + Arcana modifier + spell casting modifier + level of spell. If they roll higher, spell goes through. If it was a player, they also get an inspiration point (you can have multiple inspiration points saved in my games).
About that gatekeeping comment, I think the problem is more how the OP wrote it. In your response, you mention, correctly, that how one group decides to play doesn't affect you if you aren't part of it. However, that isn't the problem. The problem is, from my experience, when people say they want to do something or play in a certain way at another person's table and their idea gets shot down they'll sometimes pull the "You're gatekeeping me!" card. One example (and trust me, you'll love this) was when a player wanted to use a combat wheelchair, but the DM shot it down saying he didn't like the idea of them. The player proceeded to accuse him of gatekeeping.... somehow, and left shortly after a few exchanges between us and her. This is how I often see the term "gatekeeping" utilized, and it's where I think the OP is going when he says the line about "changing the way people play". I could, however, very well be taking it out of context because, as stated before, that's my experience with the word's usage, and I've seen it used like this in other places too. Regardless, OP's problem seems more about people's behavior rather than new people in general.
I will say that if that player did manage to find a game where she's allowed to use a combat wheelchair, none of us are going to care because 1) despite anyone's issue with the combat wheelchair, none of us are going to care if someone else uses it at their table and 2) we're peacefully enjoying our game with no whiners. Win-Win.
Great video, by the way. Nice hearing all the different creators reading these.
I have a piping hot take!
I think "gatekeeping" to save you the pain of bending over backward making the game something it isn't and also because other games and communities deserve their time in the sun too. Imagine someone who's never played basketball before suddenly come on the court and goes "I wanna play basketball but can we use our feet instead of our hands and let get a bigger field and put the hoop sideway on the ground and make it 11 times bigger" like honey the soccer team's right next door and they're wonderful people! Let me introduce you to them!
Agreed. Its Gatekeeping not guard duty. We help people come in just as much as we guide others out who don't belong. There are countless examples of things being ruined by people joining a community and demanding change that lead to the communities downfall.
@@firefox-op1ok "It's gatekeeping not guard duty" is a really good phrasing. Plus, D&D is heavily based on the principle of subsidiarity - if you don't like something in the core rules, your table can change it for your own table and no other group has to care.
I was about to point this out.
Gatekeeping as a term is highly demonized but, as with everything in life, a good little amount is always gonna be healthy for the community in order to not find ourselves playing basketball like soccer (and i'd argue that WotC made some changes to the game that somehow resemble this, but nothing major)
And fortunately at my table i can do whatever i want, so d&d doesn't need as much gatekeeping, but it still does
@@firefox-op1ok hell, just look at the sewing hobby. You'd like that's be an astoundingly safe and inoffensive hobby, yeah? Nope, it's apparently bigotted as hell and the new generation of sewers are full of people who spend more time making sewing political than they do actual sewing.
That’s not gatekeeping, that’s just saying no.
Hearing the the gatekeeping take (thank you for shutting that down BTW).... I'm like... "Dude.... It's D&D, not a security clearance.... Nothing bad will happen if someone does it a little different...."
Gatekeeping is a very cult-like thing. Like for anybody who considers gatekeeping to be serious community solution, it's probably more a sign that they themselves need to take a step back from their hobby and get some air.
There's probably good forms of 'gatekeeping' (like keeping pedos out or something...), but I feel like that's only true in a 'venn diagram' sort of relation. Kicking a person out from a community for an ill-fitting/dangerous mental illness/etc could be justified much better without gatekeeping's 'no true scotsman' method. I can support options that have enough in common with gatekeeping to be lazily called that, but I'll never really support gatekeeping itself.
I mean, yeah, but I also kind of get where he's coming from.
I think it's less from a standpoint of "only my way to play is correct" or some old school stuff, but rather people coming into the hobby with expectations that are wildly different from what 5he community is actually about. The comment specifically stated the community and not really the way people play. And I think he meant it more in a corporate consequences, "if you try to please everyone, you please no one" kind of way.
Which I can *partially* agree with
At a personal level, it's natural. It should be called "groupkeeping" or sumthun.
In regards to the restriction of races to pcs. If a race doesn't fit the setting that a dm is going for in their world setting, there is absolutely no reason that the dm is obligated to allow that race. Dms wanting to build a homebrew world and story for people to enjoy is a large task. Having a heavy fantasy side in regards to races for the setting is easily able to be deducted from based on a big scrap of metal walking around, claiming to be arnold schwarznegger.
I love that you got the other D&D creators to read the postings, I recognized 4 voices.
Hot Take: DMPC's can work, its just an art very hard to master. They can have the spotlight and do things of note, but the main focus should still be on the players.
Thrilling Intent from the Third Wheel youtube channel shows DMPC's done right, well, and has some of my favorite character interactions between the players and this supporting cast of DMPC's.
Stabbyness, the DM, also has his own separate channel from the game and he's a master of this craft. Highly recommend him and the groups he frequents.
There is one scenario that justifies DMPCs: Our group swaps out the DM role. One person runs the main campaign and the rest of us run occasional one shot or short arc adventures with the same characters. If it makes sense for them to be elsewhere, the current DM's character won't be involved - but sometimes the situation the characters were last in doesn't allow, story wise, for one member of the party to suddenly "be off doing something"
I was actually thinking of something similar... to train new DMs, an experienced one might play a Party NPC as a means to be part of the adventure, but still have some metagaming rights to help out if the new guy gets overwhelmed.
But now you got me thinking of a short arc where a PC might becone the party's guide in a familiar place, like a journey back home or "the party being curious why the barbarian's so well liked in the merchant's district".
Really it depends on the purpose of a dmpc and how you define it.
If it is apart of the party and has pc level, I would consider that a dmpc. I have that in my game though. I will give the party an npc native to the area or important to the question, and I will give it pc levels to make sure it doesn't die and isn't a dead weight. The npc is normally 1 to 3 levels lower that the rest of the party but still.
I think there is one other possible role for a sort of DM PC. You can have a plot line where the party is actively helping an NPC achieve a quest, with the NPC accompanying the party. Inevitably that turns the NPC into a sort of DM PC. Very essential, however, in that situation, to allow the PCs to drive the action in each session and to be the main characters of the story. It may be the NPC's quest - but it must be clear that without the PCs, the quest would have failed repeatedly.
Gm Character is a festinating topic. You introduce a way to drop off lore and act as a crutch for those weird social interactions. A another means to tell the story.
one of my favorite encounters was the GM brought in a cavalier with a griffin. We were exploring a dungeon when we came across a lake with an island in the middle. the gm looked at me (as the most experience player aka party leader) and asked "Mind if I explore the island " I looked to the party shrugged and said sure. A giant creature came up and took out the Griffin we proceeded to have a boss fight.
A friend of mine (who is not into TTRPG at all) used to hear me and other friends talk about the cool stuff we would do in the game. One day, he put out the theory, that in all the rulebooks and campaign guides etc. there are nor real rules and stuff and that there even is no such thing as a TTRPG. All there is in those books are cool stories that you can recite in front of outsiders to make it seem like the coolest thing in the world. Makes kinda sense from his perspective ;-)
I made a homebrew spell to replace Counterspell in my games a while back.
It's called
Contested spell
4th level abjuration
Casting range: 60ft
Casting time: reaction
Components: verbal, somatic, material(a small glass mirror)
You use your willpower and strong connection to the magical forces of the world to exert your control on the weave.
When someone casts a spell within 60ft of you, you can attempt to take control of the spell by beating a DC equal to 8+the spells level+the casters spellcasting ability modifier, with a check from your spellcasting ability modifier. If you succeed you may change the target of the spell, or choose the affected area for area of effect spells. If a spell requires concentration then you are considered to hold concentration on it.
Higher level casting:
For each level above 4th that you cast this spell, you gain a +1 to the roll, up to a +5 at 9th level
Classes: Wizard, Cleric, Warlock, Sorcerer, Bard
My players seem to enjoy it more than counterspell, especially when they steal a powerful healing spell from the enemy casters
4:16 oh i think i know why youtube age restricted this vidoe. He made a joke and somone got offended reported him and. Bot was like ok and slammed it whith the ban hammer
Gatekeeping is a loaded word and while the take was worded horribly I think the start of it was the heart of what was intended. Not the "danger" bit. You want the people who get into a hobby to well... actually like the hobby and not some ideal of it that they try and force something to change to. Run your tables how you want them to, there's so many kinds of players and campaigns that you'll find something that fits your style. However if someone goes into an established group being disrespectful and disruptive that behavior needs to be stopped immediately.
The problem here is you are conflating "the hobby" with "my table". You want to have a cohesive group vision of what your game should be, but if you are all running LOTR and the new guy wants to run Harry Potter, that doesn't mean he's in the wrong hobby, it means he needs a table running Strixhaven. The hobby is big enough for both.
On the topic of player flight, "I shouldn't have to change my entire game due to one ability" there are consistent flying creature options at around level 5, why is your world not already prepared to deal with flying enemies? Wizards can start bullying your "melee only" world by 3rd level, come off it, and a single spell slot to wipe out an entire camp of bandits because they don't know how to use bows isn't a resource expenditure, it's an afterthought like the tip you gave the barmaid
I know probably no one wants to hear this but I feel like there should be a parrying system in the game where if you’re attacked and you can parry as say a reaction the enemy has to make a low DC D20 check (if they miss the attack on you ) say 10 or 11 plus proficiency and if they are disarmed, or may be a counter attack
If you want to play a dumb wizard, make a sorcerer with low int high charisma who says he’s a wizard.
Gatekeeping isn't about keeping out new people and ideas, it's about keeping out the toxic ones who don't really care about the hobby and only want to twist it to serve their own purpose
The people who scream about gate keeping being bad also tend to be the people who gatekeep the hardest. Keeping bad players away from your tables has been the core of forming healthy D&D groups from the start.
hot take, gatekeeping is good but in the sense that if you get the vibes that someone is going to be a problem player or make otherwise make other people uncomfortable it's totally fine to say "hey maybe this hobby or at least this group is not for you"
"Why the fuck would you care what other people are doing at their table, it has nothing to do with your game" Exactly!
Well, for one thing there’s the “we’re listening to the community” bit they’ve been doing which seems to be skewing design into some oversimplified directions
Trying to control corporate decision making by gatekeeping players from the hobby as a whole is backwards.
Imo races should get the ASIs because they have a lot more abilities that are only useful for specific classes, background features are usually more general stuff. Gives you a lot more freedom to take whatever background fits best with your character flavor-wise, since a race's ASIs and unique features tend to be useful for similar classes anyway.
1:13 me when my Dm turns our party monk to an enemy, who nearly TPKd us. Granted, this was with a homebrew race that could do multiple attacks of the flurry of blows skill. Also in another campaign we did pvp against an entire enemy party of characters and got our asses handed to us. The Dragonborn guard NPCs and the enemy dragon didn’t help.
Hot take: even background ASIs are too limiting; just have them free floating like tasha's.
I don't want to have to finagle my narrative backstory to fit my mechanical build
You don't though, stats are not important enough that the lowly +2/+1 from racials will matter to your build. The ONLY difference is that you might miss out on that lvl 1 20 in a stat for an 18, not a big deal.
@@Ishlacorrin not sure what edition you’re playing but in 5e even starting with an 18 is very difficult for point buy or array. The max base is 15 so it takes a +2 and a half feat to get an 18
@@hewhogoesbymanynames That is 100% why you NEVER use those stat systems. 4D6 drop the lowest every time, it's been the norm since 3rd ed and with the D20 style systems it's the only good way to run a game.
Hell Even in original D&D with it's 3D6 you still had that 18 chance. Point buy and array remove one of the main parts of the game for a worse player experience all round.
@@IshlacorrinYeah, point buy is fine for video games, but feels terrible on paper. 5e does have rules for not using point buy, so this isn't even considered homebrew. I learned from my brother who started on 3rd maybe before, and we go a little further and reroll 1s so the likelihood of anything being below 10 is real low.
Awesome to see Pointy Hat here. Great content.
Martial characters are super natural and should be given abilities that represent this to help balance Martial caster balance
Agreed. They are near literally anime protagonists. All normal folk are commoners and thus 10 in most stats, meanwhile your Barbarian can lift half a ton, attack multiple times in a 6 second period, run like a moving vehicle, and shrug off attacks from beings that could nuke a city.
@@LupineShadowOmega To be fair, it can be pretty simple to attack twice in six seconds if you're properly trained and experienced, otherwise, agreed.
Hearing all these creators in this video is like one of the best colabs. I love it so much!
We need to gatekeeper so they can experience combat with the guards