i've heard the "just kill their characters" advice all the time, but i also heard "if the players have a problem with it, they'll talk to you. if they aren't talking to you, there isn't a problem". no, your players won't talk to you unless you prompt them. if you have new players they don't know when something is bad or should be fun and it isn't. when you have socially awkward or anxious players they won't go out of their way to talk to you. When you have players who are used to being mistreated by DMs they won't come to you because they assume they can't. Be aware of your players, ask them if everything is alright, if there is something that needs to change- just open the floor for discussion. you as the DM need to ask "what did you guys think? are you having fun? what can i do to make the game better?" and if the answer if nothing, than you're doing a good job (or the players are lying and in that case thats not on you thats on them), but you should still ask whats up.
My favorite counter advice to “kill the problem players character” is to remind people that if they’re bad on this character, they’re going to come back fuel by spite on an even worse new character.
"Constant PvP is good. It creates conflict between party members so we're not acting like pansies." What was supposed to be a 3 session adventure took about 10 sessions because every time the party decided to do something, this player would disagree and roll for initiative.
Thank you for the point on alignment. That exactly. Actions dictate alignment. They are not the ruleset on how your character acts. I've had to repeat this so many times.
The worst D&D advice I got was from my buddy who made this declaration playing only like four to five months of D&D. *”The best character is one with no backstory or personality, and their alignment is neutral.”* Keep in mind that this said friend plays Wizards with “tons of backstory” that he complains about not being able to talk about because the players don’t ask about it, and then when the players ask about it he gets defensive and says he won’t say. Said wizards are also _”Shoot first ask questions later” types of people, like when he wanted to kill a baby Owlbear in front of the whole party because _”It’s a monstrosity, why do we need to feel bad about it?”_
Casters should never dump Con. Concentration saves/checks are going to happen and they are going to lose some of their best spells early. Not to mention making frail characters extra vulnerable is a bad idea. HP matters after all.
I would never suggest dumping Con as a first character, but my current wizard has a negative Constitution and has like 15 hp at level 4... the build requires like 3 good stats and I didnt roll well for my stats so it was going to happen. So we always play it really well because the second I take so much as even one attack my wizard is like "OH GOD!! IM DYING I TOOK 6 POINTS OF DAMAGE"
@@ericlin7775 extra points if you play a "I have mastery over life and death" Necromancer only to immediately change to an "OWWWW GOD DAMMIT THAT HURTS" when a goblin shanks you in the leg lol
re: in-game consequences. I've found that it can work with new player or a new group, but only in certain circumstances. And those circumstances always involve reasonable in-fiction reactions to their in-fiction actions. If the problem is PvP - don't do it. If the problem is inter-party conflict - don't do it. If the problem is doing things that upset other players at the table - don't so it. But, if it's someone being edgy or not taking the potential risks for their behavior into account, showing them the risks can help. Of course, this should also go along with actually talking to the player(s) involved if they're not getting it. But a thief who constantly tries to steal things from NPCs might find themselves jailed. A jailbreak/rescue adventure can be fun, and the player having to sit at the table unable to do anything for a chunk of a session while everyone else gets to play out the rescue attempt can be a good reminder to that player. That said, any advice that says, "just kill their character" is bad advice, unless their actions include something incredibly stupid, like challenging an ancient red dragon to a duel. Even then I'd ask the player what they are doing. "Are you trying to fight, or are you using this as a ruse to escape?" If they choose to fight, they've made their bed. If it's escape, we make it a fun skill challenge.
On the alignment question, I have an example Tocrath a Lawful Good fighter who suggested taking gold back a party member had paid a inn keeper to keep them hidden and such while trying to solve a false murder rap aimed at the party. His reasoning "she did absolutely NOTHING she agreed she would when taking the gold, thus there's no reason to let her business keep it" (the inn keeper was already dead but the point still stood... he's much more flexible on 'right and wrong' not just local laws and such) and the inn keeper had said they'd be safe in her tavern for the night as they planned to leave that morning to let things cool down while they investigated the deaths to see what was really happening, and the inn keeper led the cult behind the murders right to the party cause she was working for them.
Dump Consitution on Casters: There's also that concentration checks are quite common for casters, not just in 5e. It was even its own skill in 3.5. I remember a D&D book (I think it was a Dragonlance one) where the party's wizard had low con, and it made him look as miserable as possible due to it. That DM should have read that book and ask themselves if that would be fun to play as. Just Kill Players: Instant death with a save if frustrating. One without is just a huge red flag that the DM cares more about their power-trip than having fun with the players. Kill Players to Teach a Lesson: Just killing players and NPCs you don't like makes you an ass. As crispy said, real-world problems require real-world solutions. And the fact the guy said "if they ask too many questions" sounds like it's the DM being the problem, not the players. Reminds me of the player who got kicked for asking how housing works if only characters who are level 3 or 5 own housing. Alignment Dictates Action: I like the system, and I can easily call BS on that "advice." Not only do they not understand true neutral (the character would be much more likely to hear both sides and decide from there or switch sides if new info is revealed that overrides old info than just switch sides base on numbers), they also have the "alignment dictator" mentality. Even my old 3.5 group would let my paladin look the other way to not hamper the party's enjoyment (it was a very good book he was reading, OK?). Ban People Who Use Hunter's Mark: Words fail me here. It's a PHB spell, not a OP homebrew or even one of the powerful spells that later books print. Urchins are OP: I think they meant the lockpick proficiency, but it's still silly to say it's OP because of that. I heard that a book gave those kits a boost, but unless the DM is very railroading, that shouldn't be an issue. Kill Groups You Don't Like: Again, talk to them like a sane person. Compromises and understanding each other is part of a healthy relationship, including D&D groups. Crippling Flaws?: Flaws are good. Cripple flaws that hamper the fun isn't. If the player wants that and the group is OK with it, than go ahead, but don't force or pressure your player to have a flaw they aren't comfortable with. It's like forcing the bard to be horny (DM forcing the horny flaw onto the player), as an example.
I think the reason why that person banned the urchin background is because it gives the character proficiency in thieves tools, stealth, and slight of hand. I still don't think it should be banned, it serves a very useful purpose (ie. If the party doesn't have a rogue).
I think the dumping of constitution depends on the exact version being played. I remember constitution didn't do a whole lot in Pathfinder 1e, for instance.
Alignments isn't really even supposed to be about actions, it's about how the character views the world. An evil character and a good one could easily do the exact same action, but they would see it differently and do it for very different reasons. For example, a good character would obviously save a village from a dragon attack, because they want to save the lives of the people in the village. Evil characters on the other hand will still save the village, but they would do so because they know that would put the whole village in their debt, which they could take advantage of later (whether financially, politically, etc.).
One thing I like coming out of 5e is the fluid alignments. To have Paladins not be strictly LG is really so much easier to play a Paladin. Also I've always been of the mind that alignments never should dictate any npc. Such as I've had a goblin merchant named Gibble. I really like the npc, he sells "junk" usually in my lower districts. By 'junk' I mean random assorted items. Some of which come from other adventurer parties. So you may find something good, or just as the name implies mostly junk. But by the book they are labeled as CE, I play him more as a LN type character. Mostly he does bad things as well as good things. He may overprice something and undersell if someone needs something when in need...once - a healing potion for the party when they had a party member about to die in an ally.
Heck, as far as I'm aware theres nothing (or almost nothing) that keys off alignment in 5e. The classic "Protection from..." spells refer to creature types, not their alignment. At this point, it's really an artefact from the game's origin that should be done away with.
we almost had two player deaths, but the dm gave the player trapped on the other side of a bag of holding portal stunt a way home (lost an eye in a deal with a devil) and we used a wish from a ring to bring the other player back also my lawful evil character was a wererat who was nice to family and party and honored contracts, but she would be stuck up when dealing with other people, occassionally pickpocket, loot everything that's not nailed down in enemy hide outs and most importantly she was very adamant about not helping for free and would often use those rewards to expand her political and fighting powers Even became the champion of a god, purely for the title and the power and fame that come with it After the campaign she started her own gang and founded a decently sized alliance of wererat packs Basically my talk to lawful was to have standards and my take to evil was being a criminal and having lose morals
Once I was playing a Cavalier in a Death House adventure. It was like the the DM was really trying to kill us. He ramped up the monsters even when DH is a grind as written. When I decided to take the dodge action at a choke point to prevent a group of ghouls from getting a my two remaining party members, he got frustrated that my ac was now too high for the ghouls to hit me. Then made a new rule on the fly that PC's can't dodge.
The alignment control one. Back in the days of 2e, there were some really strange interpretations of the alignments in the rulebook. Chaotic Neutral was literally "The alignment of the insane". It sounds a lot like that. That last one about the crippling flaws. I think that was written in sarcasm based on a bad experience.
Amulet of Health solves the low Con issue, if you can get a hold of a rare item Alignment is the sum of the character's choices... Not every choice or decision but how they look at the world overall
I've actually heard that true neutral thing before; way, WAY back in the days of super-early internet. It was a coworker that was explaining D&D alignment (bouncing from a conversation about what paladins are like in D&D) is to me. A lot of what he said was wrong, or maybe it's changed over the years (like pally's losing power due to alignment shift), but he was so enthusiastic about it. Probably because him, his buddy, and myself were the only ones in the area that seemed to care about RPGs that weren't Final Fantasy. We actually had a comic shop, but I never saw anything TTRPG-related in there. It was also so early-internet that I was the only one had it, and never saw anything about any rulesets due to all the RP forums I found being what's called freeform today. That and me not being particularly found of adding the rigidness and restrictions of what the coworker explained to me to my RP, despite him saying how creative you can be and how enthusiastic he was: I couldn't be Chaos 0 or a chao, so nah. XD *TL;DR:* I dunno how such mistakes stick around nowadays, but back then? It was SUPER easy. Maybe if you're getting all your info from people that aren't keeping updated with things, I guess.
I love PC conflict. One time my party was going through a dungeon, and at the end was a lich who begged us to break his phylactery. My cleric of the god of death was going to coldly carry it out, but another wanted to wait a few minutes to hear his story. After a bit of squabbling, the other guy won and we ended up learning why he wanted to die in the first place. He was tricked by an Archlich into going full Anakin Skywalker, trading his flesh for powerful necromancy to save his wife, and was doomed to suffer lifetimes of loneliness as basically a guard. The whole incident sparked big character growth for my cleric, which is still ongoing.
The worst advice I would ever give a new DM would be to wing it. It's kind of what I did back in college since I was juggling school work, World of Warcraft, and regularly DMing 3.5 D&D as well as playing in other RPGs. I usually only had about 30 minutes to make a rough map, populate it with monsters, and bait the hook for the party. We didn't have an overarching plot or anything; it was just a campaign about traveling adventurers who kept encountering danger. It was a very melee-heavy party, so I had to be careful with how I built scenarios (few traps since there were no rogues or artificers). It was fun, but it's not my idea of good D&D.
For Crippling Flaws and the concept of DM forcing actions based on those - they are fine as long as the player can choose not to have them. In 7th Sea, another game system, there are Hubrises, which are basically those crippling flaws that DM can activate to force the PC to act in a certain way according to the flaw (Steal a certain item if they are Greedy, refuse help if they are Arrogant, so on). However, those are optional on Character creation, they give you additional points for your skills if you *do* chose one, and you can try to veto the activation by spending Drama Die (an equivalent of Inspiration, though given a little bit more often). It's even better in the second edition, where Hubrises, while are mandatory for every character, can be veto'd for free and give you Hero Point (new equivalent of Inspiration) if they are activated. This is actually a good way to go around in DnD - have it so DM can force (or rather suggest) the player's character to act based on their flaw, the player can refuse, but they gain some minor benefit (Inspiration) if they don't. It can especially be good for newer players who struggle with roleplay (and for me personally, flaws are the hardest part to roleplay) while still leaving the agency in hands of the player.
For characters not fitting in with the party. I think DM's should be open to allowing the player to change their character if they wish, especially if the issue isn't easily solvable. I'm still salty about a campaign I played in where I played a true neutral Necromancer who was posing as a good aligned cleric. She actually wasn't a bad fit for the party per say (party included a vampire and death cleric) except for one other character, a good aligned ninja. Session 1 started with the ninja attacking anyone who got too close to a bag he had. We had all been teleported into an unknown area with our gear missing, so understandable we were all investigating the lone bag. When he attacked my character, she instinctively retaliated with one of her necromancy spells. He some how instantly knew that spell was evil (no roll or anything, plus he wasn't a spellcaster so I still don't understand how he knew). And then proceeded to spend the next 4 or sessions trying to hunt down and murder my character. The DM did not try to stop this. And when I proposed playing a new character I had already rolled up and thought of a way to pull her into the plot, the DM turned it down. It wasn't until two other players spoke up that she finally said something to the ninja and put a stop to the hunt. The campaign was able to move on but I still would have preferred to have just changed characters. In the end I ended up being kicked from the campaign later on for unrelated out of game reasons (though apparently she just told the other players I quite lmao). Luckily I found a new DnD group that I love! Finally getting to play a Necromancer properly (this time a undead warlock kobold who wants to make friends). We're having a blast so far :D
I really appreciated your take on 'outliers' and its an important consideration...I think its just the nature of D&D that any character who is far outside the power level of the rest of the party makes it difficult....either too much damage dealt leading to high HP monsters or too low HP leading to no challenge for the rest of the party lest the low HP char gets 1 shot every encounter....for the most part its not a huge problem, but it can lead to awkward situations, as attested by your Con dump example lol
I like what you said about outliers being the problem in parties. I've been the least powerful person in a party of minmaxers/people who were really lucky on stat rolls, and it sucks, not because my low stats were _inherently_ a problem, but because being the least valuable member of the party feels shitty. And a lot of people hate minmaxers, but some of my friends who are great players are also minmaxers, it's just a matter of being in a party that's good with that and having a DM who knows how to handle it. When everyone's at the same level, whether that's low or high, everyone can have fun
D&D alignment system is terrible. I tell my players to use 5-10 words/phrases that are their character’s motivations or traits. E.G. The wizard believes: 1. Knowledge is Power 2. Chronicling events is important 3. Strong Body can house a Strong Mind 4. Money is a tool to obtain the goal but otherwise is worthless 5. Hyper-focus to obtain a goal 6. The Law is to be upheld unless it brings me or my goals into danger If you want to use this as a DM I’d question the player over any big plot points: How does your character feel about the following? Magic, the Government/Law/King, Slavery/Freedom, etc. So that when a major twist occurs you the DM alread have an idea as to how the PC is going to react. Alternatively, if making such motivators is too difficult and a PC is looking for a prebuilt genre of them I’ve also used the Magic the Gathering color pie. White: Law, Duty, Sacrifice, Protect the Weak, Heal, Conflict resolution, Justice Blue: Knowledge, Spells and Artifice, unorthodox thinking/ outside the box, manipulation, stealth Black: Death/Revering the cycle of life, power at any price, selfish ambition, law is unimportant unless it can be twisted to serve me Red: Chaos, Freedom, Hasty decisions, Brute Force over Words Green: Nature worship, Physical prowess, tranquility/serenity, law of the jungle, nature is more important than civilization And plenty of color combinations too, but it’s all about giving the player a nice starting point.
I dumped con on a warlock recently. Backstory was that he was dying from cancer and made a deal with a lich to stop the process I'm exchange for doing some work for him. He still had cancer, it just wouldn't advance further. I represented this with his con of 8. I believe he had around 10-13 hp at level 3. I really enjoyed playing the character and will probably use him again since I only got 2 or 3 sessions with him. In most games I've played, death is super uncommon. Uping the risk factor a bit added to the dun for me
I dumped con as a paladin in 4e, it was awesome! It was an unconventional build (I found a way to get double dex bonus on fullplate, getting a ridiculous AC), it was a fun flaw to have
I went to reddit for social anxiety advice when it comes to dming. A lot of the help was sound advice but some of it was just to start drinking. I'm not even the drinking age in my country
@@APerson-ws4cw It varied and some of it requires context. I have never been a DM but at one point I was going to. I was gonna run Curse of Strahd but my anxiety killed it before the first session. My mental health was (and kinda still is) pretty bad. Given that context, a lot of people told me to go to therapy for my mental health which I have restarted. They also told me to remember that my group is made up of my friends and to relax. One dude said that the anxiety doesn't go away and that you can either fall to it or push through it. Idk how good that last part is but it certainly is inspiring
@@Don_Ratski I see, I've been DMing for about 5 years and I still get anxiety before I run a game. It's a lot lower with friends, but all I've done with it is to just push through it because I know once I'm in the session I'll calm down
@@Don_Ratski No problem, though if you're still anxious in session, try taking a look at the faces of your players. You can tell when they're enjoying it by their smiles or their laughter. It's hard to think you're doing a bad job when you're players are visibly happy
Partially related to the killing pcs part of the video, but in my main campaign, every single pc has died at least once. Except for my character. And after a while I started somewhat joking how I can't die and our dm can't kill me (honestly I've probably brought it up too much to the other players and dm). But after a hiatus, we came back and ended up in a dungeon crawl, where we found a hall filled with mannequins and a strange being called The Oracle. This was a safe space and the oracle let us rest there, and they also let us make a deal with them: swap 2 points from one stat of our low stats to another, and in exchange, we had to stay in this hall as a mannequin for 5 years after we died. Now, I kinda missed that second part and was like, yes please, take my strength and give me wisdom. So now, I'm stuck in this deal which doesn't SEEM bad on the surface, but we don't know if I can actually come BACK if I die and get revived. TL;DR Got cocky with my character not dying and made a bad deal that if I die I get put in a mannequin for 5 years, and may not be able to come back via reviving. All because of my own inability to listen.
Look I absolutely agree that an out of game conversation is always the first step. However I do think in game consequences can reinforce the message or be a step between said conversation and booting them out.
I dump constitution on all of my arcane casters. I currently am playing a level 10 Bladesinger with a 10 in constitution in Out of the Abyss. It's been a blast, because I need to think of every single ounce of positioning I do in every round of combat. Makes it so I can't outshine the martials as well.
Yeah as somebody who's first ever experience with dnd (kinda) was Baldur's Gate on PC, back when I didn't understand what any of the stats meant, thus somehow ended up having to get my squishy wizard all the way to the first city with a max HP of FOUR... yes. Do not dump the CON stat.
Crispy how do you feel, about the chunky Sasa rule. If a player dose something that would turn their character into chunky Sasa and fail their. Then no matter how much health they have they would still die.
WHat's the name of the microphone you're using? Also, on casters not using CON; well, concentration checks are a thing, and some of us just don't want our paper-thin caster to be even more fragile than they are.
I just saw more of the title, it is, and if I'm not mistaken you have Wind Rider's Oath and War God's Own on the shelf too though they're hidden behind the black book standing out on the front. I'm paying attention to your video not just your bookshelf I swear
"2x(1d6+4+1d6) is too much damage." Boy I'd hate to see how this dm would deal with the archer from one of my older campaigns. A ranger/rogue/fighter/cleric multiclass with an oathbow who could deal upwards of 150 damage on turn one not counting action surge or crits. How I dealt with this? I maxed out any boss enemy's hp and tacked on an extra 150 as a "Torfa buffer."
World's dumbest player that dumped con on a level 1 cleric... me. Got punched by an NPC at a tavern that dealt damage equal to my hp. Drunk NPC was complaining about not having enough booze, my character (kinda snarkily) handed over her glass like, "Oh for all that nonsense, here, have mine." and goes to get another drink. Punch. DM let me fix it later but I got pretty antsy about RPing in that game ever since. TL;DR, learned a lesson, got better, and so did the DM.
I often GM but the only bad rpg advice that shoots to the top of my mind is when I was told as a player that I shouldn't call out other players that are cheating. I'm sure they only ment it when it was unintentional, such as misinterpreting or forgetting every detail. I don't care why someone cheats, even if it is an honest mistake, I don't condone cheating, especially when the mistakes are always in the players favor making it suspect of more like cheating than someone that never properly learned the rules.
I mean absolutely no disrespect, but this is the first time I see Crispy's face and the first thing that came to my mind is: He's Markiplier's pre-evolution
Probably the worst advice I've heard was "you overleveled your players by going into their backstory missions before the main mission and now they're too strong for the main mission to challenge them?... TPK the players, and not only that, make them think it was all their fault, like you did nothing wrong, make them feel stupid for what they did so they don't question you". The person who received this advice they got, also explained to their players "guys I'm sorry, I totally overleveled you, can we take a step back and get back more into the main mission?" and all of the players understood and recognized the issue, didn't blame their DM in the slightest, and respect was shown all round.
Ive had problems with pcs leaving the room and coming back for their turn asking what's happening now. They lost their turn for not knowing what was going on constantly(this happened a lot before i decided to punish them for it). They werent happy, but if you wanna play... Dont lay down on the goddamn couch. If your group doesn't wanna die, everyone needs to pay attention.
What if you have no other choice to dumpstat constitution? I mean, if as a sorcerer, have to choose between a kind of okay charisma and kind of okay constitution, what should you pick?
@@schwarzerritter5724 It could work since its not a negative modifier to con. And honestly in this case I'd increase Dex or take a +1 to ability feat (Resilient or something) at level 4.
3:39 ...until they stop asking questions? Someone hates noobs and actively tries to kill their interest in the game. The heck don't you just explain the thing they're confused about?
For the Aligment: Hell my current Dude is NE but helps his party..because ya can't do evil when the world gets destroyed now can't you. Also gets me places I couldn't access alone.
My top tip: optimize for your group, and then within concept. I never approach a game with a super-optimized build, but I find out what the group is planning or intends to play, and I see what the group needs. After I have an idea of the necessary role, I draw inspiration for my character from the setting, possibly other characters. Once I have a character concept, then I optimize mechanically. Usually I find that rounding out the group well makes the encounters less swingy, which helps with balance.
I don't see why urchin is an op background but there is one I'm dreading for an upcoming game. About to run tomb of annihilation and I'm hoping no one wants to use outlander. Having a character always be able to find food seems like kind of a bummer for that game. Really take away our of the biggest reasons to go back to civilization from time to time
Worst advice: don't play a bard!!! Clerics are better in suport if that's what you are aiming for, rogues are better in stealth and wizards are better dmg and utility casters!!! Yeah... WtF
Played a higher lvl campagn ones made my wizard had a -2 con rolled hit dice before i was my lvl i need for the campagn i had 0 hit points. I call this character the misscarriege
@@ArawnNox no it does not say that. its says number you rolled plus con modfire. if that happens to put it on 0 or -1 that happens no where in the rules does it say you alway get 1 hit point. other stuff does say it gives a minimum of one. edit same as unarmed attack if you have a -1 on to str unless your have special stuff your damage when punch someone is always zero. If -1 or -2 is ignored it always says that. in the rules text. exemple underwater holding your breath. is per con modifer 1 min. so +5 con is 5 min. but the minimum is always 30 seconds. so if you have -4 for its still 30 seconds.
@@Felzorful alright. No need to hammer the point home with unrelated rules. The potential for losing net HP on a level up sounds like a rules oversight and at least making a strong case for the rule letting you take the average die roll.
"Crippling flaws" aren't just having 8 Dex on a class that uses ranged weapons. I feel like the spirit of that comment was more geared towards characters with flaws that are exaggerated and simply do not work for the campaign you're playing, even if they would be fine in other campaigns. That can be a Gunslinger with 8 Dex in a combat-heavy campaign, or a Bard with 8 Cha in a social-heavy one. If you're told you're doing a cloak-and-dagger intrigue campaign in the middle of a city, rolling up a Druid who despises civilizations and refuses to go inside city walls will clearly be counter-productive, but might work fine in a wilderness campaign. Same for making a Rogue who is traumatized and refuses to go inside dungeons of any kind when playing a dungeon-crawler, or making a Wizard who fears magic and refuses to use it on a Strixhaven campaign. If your Gunslinger has 8 Dex but never makes a Dex check because the campaign is very social-oriented, his flaw isn't "crippling," so it does not count towards this entry of the list.
i've heard the "just kill their characters" advice all the time, but i also heard "if the players have a problem with it, they'll talk to you. if they aren't talking to you, there isn't a problem".
no, your players won't talk to you unless you prompt them. if you have new players they don't know when something is bad or should be fun and it isn't. when you have socially awkward or anxious players they won't go out of their way to talk to you. When you have players who are used to being mistreated by DMs they won't come to you because they assume they can't. Be aware of your players, ask them if everything is alright, if there is something that needs to change- just open the floor for discussion. you as the DM need to ask "what did you guys think? are you having fun? what can i do to make the game better?" and if the answer if nothing, than you're doing a good job (or the players are lying and in that case thats not on you thats on them), but you should still ask whats up.
My favorite counter advice to “kill the problem players character” is to remind people that if they’re bad on this character, they’re going to come back fuel by spite on an even worse new character.
"Constant PvP is good. It creates conflict between party members so we're not acting like pansies." What was supposed to be a 3 session adventure took about 10 sessions because every time the party decided to do something, this player would disagree and roll for initiative.
Thank you for the point on alignment.
That exactly. Actions dictate alignment. They are not the ruleset on how your character acts. I've had to repeat this so many times.
"Hunter's Mark is OP."
Does this DM know that the maul and greatsword both do 2d6 damage?
Has this dm heard of sneak attack?
Man people who don't know about optimizing damage really do be thinking Hex and Hunter mark is OP
@@WhyYouMadBoi that's comically misinformed of them
Oh when those DMs hear about sneak attack they ban that too
@@Bugbite0656 You're not wrong
In my homebrew world i added 3 gods
The rodent, the crab, and the dragon
Medusa and Caesar's busts: "There is another"
Don't forget the crow and the bear
The worst D&D advice I got was from my buddy who made this declaration playing only like four to five months of D&D.
*”The best character is one with no backstory or personality, and their alignment is neutral.”*
Keep in mind that this said friend plays Wizards with “tons of backstory” that he complains about not being able to talk about because the players don’t ask about it, and then when the players ask about it he gets defensive and says he won’t say. Said wizards are also _”Shoot first ask questions later” types of people, like when he wanted to kill a baby Owlbear in front of the whole party because _”It’s a monstrosity, why do we need to feel bad about it?”_
Casters should never dump Con. Concentration saves/checks are going to happen and they are going to lose some of their best spells early.
Not to mention making frail characters extra vulnerable is a bad idea. HP matters after all.
I know some folks might not get this, but it’s awesome seeing Asian faces in the TTRPG space. Keep doing your thing, homie.
I get it friend. Totally with you on that, happy to have you here!
I would never suggest dumping Con as a first character, but my current wizard has a negative Constitution and has like 15 hp at level 4... the build requires like 3 good stats and I didnt roll well for my stats so it was going to happen. So we always play it really well because the second I take so much as even one attack my wizard is like "OH GOD!! IM DYING I TOOK 6 POINTS OF DAMAGE"
Agreed. Always cap it if you can
Ah yes the classic wizard who is down after a 1d4 weapon crits
@@ericlin7775 extra points if you play a "I have mastery over life and death" Necromancer only to immediately change to an "OWWWW GOD DAMMIT THAT HURTS" when a goblin shanks you in the leg lol
It's a good idea to at least have a plus 2 to con even as a wizard.
@@catandrobbyflores I needed a high dex, charisma, and int, cause it's a yuan ti wizard and I only rolled three good stats
re: in-game consequences. I've found that it can work with new player or a new group, but only in certain circumstances. And those circumstances always involve reasonable in-fiction reactions to their in-fiction actions.
If the problem is PvP - don't do it.
If the problem is inter-party conflict - don't do it.
If the problem is doing things that upset other players at the table - don't so it.
But, if it's someone being edgy or not taking the potential risks for their behavior into account, showing them the risks can help.
Of course, this should also go along with actually talking to the player(s) involved if they're not getting it. But a thief who constantly tries to steal things from NPCs might find themselves jailed. A jailbreak/rescue adventure can be fun, and the player having to sit at the table unable to do anything for a chunk of a session while everyone else gets to play out the rescue attempt can be a good reminder to that player.
That said, any advice that says, "just kill their character" is bad advice, unless their actions include something incredibly stupid, like challenging an ancient red dragon to a duel. Even then I'd ask the player what they are doing. "Are you trying to fight, or are you using this as a ruse to escape?" If they choose to fight, they've made their bed. If it's escape, we make it a fun skill challenge.
On the alignment question, I have an example
Tocrath a Lawful Good fighter who suggested taking gold back a party member had paid a inn keeper to keep them hidden and such while trying to solve a false murder rap aimed at the party.
His reasoning "she did absolutely NOTHING she agreed she would when taking the gold, thus there's no reason to let her business keep it" (the inn keeper was already dead but the point still stood... he's much more flexible on 'right and wrong' not just local laws and such)
and the inn keeper had said they'd be safe in her tavern for the night as they planned to leave that morning to let things cool down while they investigated the deaths to see what was really happening, and the inn keeper led the cult behind the murders right to the party cause she was working for them.
That's not really good, but you can argue it could be lawful
This is more Lawful Neutral/Evil to me
Don't kill your players. Kill your PCs if you must, but don't kill your players.
Except for Joe, Joe knows what he did
Dump Consitution on Casters: There's also that concentration checks are quite common for casters, not just in 5e. It was even its own skill in 3.5. I remember a D&D book (I think it was a Dragonlance one) where the party's wizard had low con, and it made him look as miserable as possible due to it. That DM should have read that book and ask themselves if that would be fun to play as.
Just Kill Players: Instant death with a save if frustrating. One without is just a huge red flag that the DM cares more about their power-trip than having fun with the players.
Kill Players to Teach a Lesson: Just killing players and NPCs you don't like makes you an ass. As crispy said, real-world problems require real-world solutions. And the fact the guy said "if they ask too many questions" sounds like it's the DM being the problem, not the players. Reminds me of the player who got kicked for asking how housing works if only characters who are level 3 or 5 own housing.
Alignment Dictates Action: I like the system, and I can easily call BS on that "advice." Not only do they not understand true neutral (the character would be much more likely to hear both sides and decide from there or switch sides if new info is revealed that overrides old info than just switch sides base on numbers), they also have the "alignment dictator" mentality. Even my old 3.5 group would let my paladin look the other way to not hamper the party's enjoyment (it was a very good book he was reading, OK?).
Ban People Who Use Hunter's Mark: Words fail me here. It's a PHB spell, not a OP homebrew or even one of the powerful spells that later books print.
Urchins are OP: I think they meant the lockpick proficiency, but it's still silly to say it's OP because of that. I heard that a book gave those kits a boost, but unless the DM is very railroading, that shouldn't be an issue.
Kill Groups You Don't Like: Again, talk to them like a sane person. Compromises and understanding each other is part of a healthy relationship, including D&D groups.
Crippling Flaws?: Flaws are good. Cripple flaws that hamper the fun isn't. If the player wants that and the group is OK with it, than go ahead, but don't force or pressure your player to have a flaw they aren't comfortable with. It's like forcing the bard to be horny (DM forcing the horny flaw onto the player), as an example.
I am SUCH a fan of Tabletop Tavern Tips!! (TTT?) Just wanted to let you know we appreciate your videos, Crispy.
I think the reason why that person banned the urchin background is because it gives the character proficiency in thieves tools, stealth, and slight of hand. I still don't think it should be banned, it serves a very useful purpose (ie. If the party doesn't have a rogue).
I think the dumping of constitution depends on the exact version being played. I remember constitution didn't do a whole lot in Pathfinder 1e, for instance.
I didn’t realize you were Asian. Cool to see fellow Asians on this platform when we can’t breakthrough on traditional media.
Alignments isn't really even supposed to be about actions, it's about how the character views the world. An evil character and a good one could easily do the exact same action, but they would see it differently and do it for very different reasons.
For example, a good character would obviously save a village from a dragon attack, because they want to save the lives of the people in the village. Evil characters on the other hand will still save the village, but they would do so because they know that would put the whole village in their debt, which they could take advantage of later (whether financially, politically, etc.).
One thing I like coming out of 5e is the fluid alignments. To have Paladins not be strictly LG is really so much easier to play a Paladin. Also I've always been of the mind that alignments never should dictate any npc. Such as I've had a goblin merchant named Gibble. I really like the npc, he sells "junk" usually in my lower districts. By 'junk' I mean random assorted items. Some of which come from other adventurer parties. So you may find something good, or just as the name implies mostly junk. But by the book they are labeled as CE, I play him more as a LN type character. Mostly he does bad things as well as good things. He may overprice something and undersell if someone needs something when in need...once - a healing potion for the party when they had a party member about to die in an ally.
Heck, as far as I'm aware theres nothing (or almost nothing) that keys off alignment in 5e. The classic "Protection from..." spells refer to creature types, not their alignment. At this point, it's really an artefact from the game's origin that should be done away with.
we almost had two player deaths, but the dm gave the player trapped on the other side of a bag of holding portal stunt a way home (lost an eye in a deal with a devil) and we used a wish from a ring to bring the other player back
also my lawful evil character was a wererat who was nice to family and party and honored contracts, but she would be stuck up when dealing with other people, occassionally pickpocket, loot everything that's not nailed down in enemy hide outs and most importantly she was very adamant about not helping for free and would often use those rewards to expand her political and fighting powers
Even became the champion of a god, purely for the title and the power and fame that come with it
After the campaign she started her own gang and founded a decently sized alliance of wererat packs
Basically my talk to lawful was to have standards and my take to evil was being a criminal and having lose morals
On dumping con, I feel quite good about my chonky sorcerer whose hit points are outpacing the d8 classes lmao.
Once I was playing a Cavalier in a Death House adventure. It was like the the DM was really trying to kill us. He ramped up the monsters even when DH is a grind as written. When I decided to take the dodge action at a choke point to prevent a group of ghouls from getting a my two remaining party members, he got frustrated that my ac was now too high for the ghouls to hit me. Then made a new rule on the fly that PC's can't dodge.
Killing players is still a crime, though.
The alignment control one. Back in the days of 2e, there were some really strange interpretations of the alignments in the rulebook. Chaotic Neutral was literally "The alignment of the insane". It sounds a lot like that.
That last one about the crippling flaws. I think that was written in sarcasm based on a bad experience.
Amulet of Health solves the low Con issue, if you can get a hold of a rare item
Alignment is the sum of the character's choices... Not every choice or decision but how they look at the world overall
I've actually heard that true neutral thing before; way, WAY back in the days of super-early internet. It was a coworker that was explaining D&D alignment (bouncing from a conversation about what paladins are like in D&D) is to me. A lot of what he said was wrong, or maybe it's changed over the years (like pally's losing power due to alignment shift), but he was so enthusiastic about it.
Probably because him, his buddy, and myself were the only ones in the area that seemed to care about RPGs that weren't Final Fantasy. We actually had a comic shop, but I never saw anything TTRPG-related in there. It was also so early-internet that I was the only one had it, and never saw anything about any rulesets due to all the RP forums I found being what's called freeform today. That and me not being particularly found of adding the rigidness and restrictions of what the coworker explained to me to my RP, despite him saying how creative you can be and how enthusiastic he was: I couldn't be Chaos 0 or a chao, so nah. XD
*TL;DR:* I dunno how such mistakes stick around nowadays, but back then? It was SUPER easy. Maybe if you're getting all your info from people that aren't keeping updated with things, I guess.
I love PC conflict. One time my party was going through a dungeon, and at the end was a lich who begged us to break his phylactery. My cleric of the god of death was going to coldly carry it out, but another wanted to wait a few minutes to hear his story. After a bit of squabbling, the other guy won and we ended up learning why he wanted to die in the first place. He was tricked by an Archlich into going full Anakin Skywalker, trading his flesh for powerful necromancy to save his wife, and was doomed to suffer lifetimes of loneliness as basically a guard. The whole incident sparked big character growth for my cleric, which is still ongoing.
The worst advice I would ever give a new DM would be to wing it. It's kind of what I did back in college since I was juggling school work, World of Warcraft, and regularly DMing 3.5 D&D as well as playing in other RPGs. I usually only had about 30 minutes to make a rough map, populate it with monsters, and bait the hook for the party. We didn't have an overarching plot or anything; it was just a campaign about traveling adventurers who kept encountering danger. It was a very melee-heavy party, so I had to be careful with how I built scenarios (few traps since there were no rogues or artificers). It was fun, but it's not my idea of good D&D.
Hey, I have the same collection of Lovecraft works. That is a book you can use as an improvised melee weapon in a pinch.
For Crippling Flaws and the concept of DM forcing actions based on those - they are fine as long as the player can choose not to have them. In 7th Sea, another game system, there are Hubrises, which are basically those crippling flaws that DM can activate to force the PC to act in a certain way according to the flaw (Steal a certain item if they are Greedy, refuse help if they are Arrogant, so on). However, those are optional on Character creation, they give you additional points for your skills if you *do* chose one, and you can try to veto the activation by spending Drama Die (an equivalent of Inspiration, though given a little bit more often).
It's even better in the second edition, where Hubrises, while are mandatory for every character, can be veto'd for free and give you Hero Point (new equivalent of Inspiration) if they are activated. This is actually a good way to go around in DnD - have it so DM can force (or rather suggest) the player's character to act based on their flaw, the player can refuse, but they gain some minor benefit (Inspiration) if they don't. It can especially be good for newer players who struggle with roleplay (and for me personally, flaws are the hardest part to roleplay) while still leaving the agency in hands of the player.
For characters not fitting in with the party. I think DM's should be open to allowing the player to change their character if they wish, especially if the issue isn't easily solvable. I'm still salty about a campaign I played in where I played a true neutral Necromancer who was posing as a good aligned cleric. She actually wasn't a bad fit for the party per say (party included a vampire and death cleric) except for one other character, a good aligned ninja. Session 1 started with the ninja attacking anyone who got too close to a bag he had. We had all been teleported into an unknown area with our gear missing, so understandable we were all investigating the lone bag. When he attacked my character, she instinctively retaliated with one of her necromancy spells. He some how instantly knew that spell was evil (no roll or anything, plus he wasn't a spellcaster so I still don't understand how he knew). And then proceeded to spend the next 4 or sessions trying to hunt down and murder my character. The DM did not try to stop this. And when I proposed playing a new character I had already rolled up and thought of a way to pull her into the plot, the DM turned it down. It wasn't until two other players spoke up that she finally said something to the ninja and put a stop to the hunt. The campaign was able to move on but I still would have preferred to have just changed characters. In the end I ended up being kicked from the campaign later on for unrelated out of game reasons (though apparently she just told the other players I quite lmao). Luckily I found a new DnD group that I love! Finally getting to play a Necromancer properly (this time a undead warlock kobold who wants to make friends). We're having a blast so far :D
I really appreciated your take on 'outliers' and its an important consideration...I think its just the nature of D&D that any character who is far outside the power level of the rest of the party makes it difficult....either too much damage dealt leading to high HP monsters or too low HP leading to no challenge for the rest of the party lest the low HP char gets 1 shot every encounter....for the most part its not a huge problem, but it can lead to awkward situations, as attested by your Con dump example lol
I like what you said about outliers being the problem in parties. I've been the least powerful person in a party of minmaxers/people who were really lucky on stat rolls, and it sucks, not because my low stats were _inherently_ a problem, but because being the least valuable member of the party feels shitty. And a lot of people hate minmaxers, but some of my friends who are great players are also minmaxers, it's just a matter of being in a party that's good with that and having a DM who knows how to handle it. When everyone's at the same level, whether that's low or high, everyone can have fun
D&D alignment system is terrible.
I tell my players to use 5-10 words/phrases that are their character’s motivations or traits.
E.G. The wizard believes:
1. Knowledge is Power
2. Chronicling events is important
3. Strong Body can house a Strong Mind
4. Money is a tool to obtain the goal but otherwise is worthless
5. Hyper-focus to obtain a goal
6. The Law is to be upheld unless it brings me or my goals into danger
If you want to use this as a DM I’d question the player over any big plot points:
How does your character feel about the following? Magic, the Government/Law/King, Slavery/Freedom, etc. So that when a major twist occurs you the DM alread have an idea as to how the PC is going to react.
Alternatively, if making such motivators is too difficult and a PC is looking for a prebuilt genre of them I’ve also used the Magic the Gathering color pie.
White: Law, Duty, Sacrifice, Protect the Weak, Heal, Conflict resolution, Justice
Blue: Knowledge, Spells and Artifice, unorthodox thinking/ outside the box, manipulation, stealth
Black: Death/Revering the cycle of life, power at any price, selfish ambition, law is unimportant unless it can be twisted to serve me
Red: Chaos, Freedom, Hasty decisions, Brute Force over Words
Green: Nature worship, Physical prowess, tranquility/serenity, law of the jungle, nature is more important than civilization
And plenty of color combinations too, but it’s all about giving the player a nice starting point.
I dumped con on a warlock recently. Backstory was that he was dying from cancer and made a deal with a lich to stop the process I'm exchange for doing some work for him. He still had cancer, it just wouldn't advance further. I represented this with his con of 8. I believe he had around 10-13 hp at level 3. I really enjoyed playing the character and will probably use him again since I only got 2 or 3 sessions with him.
In most games I've played, death is super uncommon. Uping the risk factor a bit added to the dun for me
I dumped con as a paladin in 4e, it was awesome! It was an unconventional build (I found a way to get double dex bonus on fullplate, getting a ridiculous AC), it was a fun flaw to have
I went to reddit for social anxiety advice when it comes to dming. A lot of the help was sound advice but some of it was just to start drinking. I'm not even the drinking age in my country
what was the good advice?
@@APerson-ws4cw It varied and some of it requires context. I have never been a DM but at one point I was going to. I was gonna run Curse of Strahd but my anxiety killed it before the first session. My mental health was (and kinda still is) pretty bad.
Given that context, a lot of people told me to go to therapy for my mental health which I have restarted. They also told me to remember that my group is made up of my friends and to relax. One dude said that the anxiety doesn't go away and that you can either fall to it or push through it. Idk how good that last part is but it certainly is inspiring
@@Don_Ratski I see, I've been DMing for about 5 years and I still get anxiety before I run a game. It's a lot lower with friends, but all I've done with it is to just push through it because I know once I'm in the session I'll calm down
@@APerson-ws4cw that is honestly the most realistic advice I have ever seen. Thank you for the help
@@Don_Ratski No problem, though if you're still anxious in session, try taking a look at the faces of your players. You can tell when they're enjoying it by their smiles or their laughter. It's hard to think you're doing a bad job when you're players are visibly happy
Partially related to the killing pcs part of the video, but in my main campaign, every single pc has died at least once. Except for my character. And after a while I started somewhat joking how I can't die and our dm can't kill me (honestly I've probably brought it up too much to the other players and dm). But after a hiatus, we came back and ended up in a dungeon crawl, where we found a hall filled with mannequins and a strange being called The Oracle. This was a safe space and the oracle let us rest there, and they also let us make a deal with them: swap 2 points from one stat of our low stats to another, and in exchange, we had to stay in this hall as a mannequin for 5 years after we died. Now, I kinda missed that second part and was like, yes please, take my strength and give me wisdom. So now, I'm stuck in this deal which doesn't SEEM bad on the surface, but we don't know if I can actually come BACK if I die and get revived.
TL;DR Got cocky with my character not dying and made a bad deal that if I die I get put in a mannequin for 5 years, and may not be able to come back via reviving. All because of my own inability to listen.
I've never thought a background could be OP
Look I absolutely agree that an out of game conversation is always the first step. However I do think in game consequences can reinforce the message or be a step between said conversation and booting them out.
I dump constitution on all of my arcane casters. I currently am playing a level 10 Bladesinger with a 10 in constitution in Out of the Abyss. It's been a blast, because I need to think of every single ounce of positioning I do in every round of combat. Makes it so I can't outshine the martials as well.
Yeah as somebody who's first ever experience with dnd (kinda) was Baldur's Gate on PC, back when I didn't understand what any of the stats meant, thus somehow ended up having to get my squishy wizard all the way to the first city with a max HP of FOUR... yes. Do not dump the CON stat.
1:03 Spoiler alert: At some point in your game you WILL get hit. It’s just going to happen
Crispy how do you feel, about the chunky Sasa rule. If a player dose something that would turn their character into chunky Sasa and fail their. Then no matter how much health they have they would still die.
Damn the rat OC be looking really realistic in this episode
Wow you're handsome
WHat's the name of the microphone you're using?
Also, on casters not using CON; well, concentration checks are a thing, and some of us just don't want our paper-thin caster to be even more fragile than they are.
hey Crispy, which David Weber novel do you have ack there? I'm a huge Weber fan so I'm really curious!
I think that's War Maid's Choice? If so. GREAT choice, I love the Bahzell books omg
Good eye!
I just saw more of the title, it is, and if I'm not mistaken you have Wind Rider's Oath and War God's Own on the shelf too though they're hidden behind the black book standing out on the front.
I'm paying attention to your video not just your bookshelf I swear
@@CrispysTavern I had it siting out on my table for like a year at one point because I love it so much
Oh shit, VTuber face reveal. Great video, by the way. Will definitely keep these in mind when DMing.
"2x(1d6+4+1d6) is too much damage."
Boy I'd hate to see how this dm would deal with the archer from one of my older campaigns. A ranger/rogue/fighter/cleric multiclass with an oathbow who could deal upwards of 150 damage on turn one not counting action surge or crits. How I dealt with this? I maxed out any boss enemy's hp and tacked on an extra 150 as a "Torfa buffer."
World's dumbest player that dumped con on a level 1 cleric... me. Got punched by an NPC at a tavern that dealt damage equal to my hp. Drunk NPC was complaining about not having enough booze, my character (kinda snarkily) handed over her glass like, "Oh for all that nonsense, here, have mine." and goes to get another drink. Punch. DM let me fix it later but I got pretty antsy about RPing in that game ever since. TL;DR, learned a lesson, got better, and so did the DM.
Being banned because you're doing too much damage is like when you're kicked from a multiplayer lobby because people think you're hacking
Personally, I feel alignment is best thought of I the same way a director will tell an actor how they should be playing a character.
I often GM but the only bad rpg advice that shoots to the top of my mind is when I was told as a player that I shouldn't call out other players that are cheating. I'm sure they only ment it when it was unintentional, such as misinterpreting or forgetting every detail. I don't care why someone cheats, even if it is an honest mistake, I don't condone cheating, especially when the mistakes are always in the players favor making it suspect of more like cheating than someone that never properly learned the rules.
Awe. Crispy's a cutie.
I've never played as a "glass cannon" spell caster myself. I usually have an okay Con stat.
I mean absolutely no disrespect, but this is the first time I see Crispy's face and the first thing that came to my mind is:
He's Markiplier's pre-evolution
Probably the worst advice I've heard was "you overleveled your players by going into their backstory missions before the main mission and now they're too strong for the main mission to challenge them?... TPK the players, and not only that, make them think it was all their fault, like you did nothing wrong, make them feel stupid for what they did so they don't question you".
The person who received this advice they got, also explained to their players "guys I'm sorry, I totally overleveled you, can we take a step back and get back more into the main mission?" and all of the players understood and recognized the issue, didn't blame their DM in the slightest, and respect was shown all round.
The other option could have been to tune up the main mission encounters, too.
@@ArawnNox of course
Ive had problems with pcs leaving the room and coming back for their turn asking what's happening now. They lost their turn for not knowing what was going on constantly(this happened a lot before i decided to punish them for it). They werent happy, but if you wanna play... Dont lay down on the goddamn couch. If your group doesn't wanna die, everyone needs to pay attention.
What if you have no other choice to dumpstat constitution?
I mean, if as a sorcerer, have to choose between a kind of okay charisma and kind of okay constitution, what should you pick?
Personally I'd take the Charisma and try to stay out of range. Did you roll for stats?
@@25586Yamuna Not for a sorcerer, but a Monk. Sometimes you just have to play with 13 dexterity and 11 constitution (after Human bonus).
@@schwarzerritter5724 It could work since its not a negative modifier to con. And honestly in this case I'd increase Dex or take a +1 to ability feat (Resilient or something) at level 4.
3:39 ...until they stop asking questions? Someone hates noobs and actively tries to kill their interest in the game. The heck don't you just explain the thing they're confused about?
Tell players to read the PHB. Particularly the sections on ability scores, races, and class.
For the Aligment: Hell my current Dude is NE but helps his party..because ya can't do evil when the world gets destroyed now can't you.
Also gets me places I couldn't access alone.
Of course Urchins are OP as hell, they get a pet mouse. Nothing stoping you from making it master Splinter.
My top tip: optimize for your group, and then within concept. I never approach a game with a super-optimized build, but I find out what the group is planning or intends to play, and I see what the group needs. After I have an idea of the necessary role, I draw inspiration for my character from the setting, possibly other characters. Once I have a character concept, then I optimize mechanically. Usually I find that rounding out the group well makes the encounters less swingy, which helps with balance.
“Hunter’s Mark is OP”
If the ranger remembers to use it.
I don't see why urchin is an op background but there is one I'm dreading for an upcoming game. About to run tomb of annihilation and I'm hoping no one wants to use outlander. Having a character always be able to find food seems like kind of a bummer for that game. Really take away our of the biggest reasons to go back to civilization from time to time
Worst advice: "Never say no to your players"
I comment with: Crispy, the content rouge. Because I thought it's funny.
True Neutral used to just be Neutral Neutral, but that’s just redundant redundant.
How often do l make jokes about chemistry? Periodically.
Dumping con for a spellcaster is rediculous, concentration is con based let alone the whole hit point thing.
Buttons.
"Just roll better"
Worst advice: don't play a bard!!! Clerics are better in suport if that's what you are aiming for, rogues are better in stealth and wizards are better dmg and utility casters!!!
Yeah... WtF
Played a higher lvl campagn ones made my wizard had a -2 con rolled hit dice before i was my lvl i need for the campagn i had 0 hit points. I call this character the misscarriege
You should get a minimum of 1 hp per level. Not actually lose hp on levelling.
@@ArawnNox no it does not say that. its says number you rolled plus con modfire. if that happens to put it on 0 or -1 that happens no where in the rules does it say you alway get 1 hit point. other stuff does say it gives a minimum of one.
edit
same as unarmed attack if you have a -1 on to str unless your have special stuff your damage when punch someone is always zero.
If -1 or -2 is ignored it always says that. in the rules text.
exemple underwater holding your breath. is per con modifer 1 min. so +5 con is 5 min.
but the minimum is always 30 seconds. so if you have -4 for its still 30 seconds.
@@Felzorful alright. No need to hammer the point home with unrelated rules. The potential for losing net HP on a level up sounds like a rules oversight and at least making a strong case for the rule letting you take the average die roll.
"Crippling flaws" aren't just having 8 Dex on a class that uses ranged weapons. I feel like the spirit of that comment was more geared towards characters with flaws that are exaggerated and simply do not work for the campaign you're playing, even if they would be fine in other campaigns. That can be a Gunslinger with 8 Dex in a combat-heavy campaign, or a Bard with 8 Cha in a social-heavy one.
If you're told you're doing a cloak-and-dagger intrigue campaign in the middle of a city, rolling up a Druid who despises civilizations and refuses to go inside city walls will clearly be counter-productive, but might work fine in a wilderness campaign. Same for making a Rogue who is traumatized and refuses to go inside dungeons of any kind when playing a dungeon-crawler, or making a Wizard who fears magic and refuses to use it on a Strixhaven campaign.
If your Gunslinger has 8 Dex but never makes a Dex check because the campaign is very social-oriented, his flaw isn't "crippling," so it does not count towards this entry of the list.
Do something original.
Dump Con as a Barbarian.
Not like you need it anyway, right?
Don't punish player actions out of game with a in game death if they are a jerk irl kill them irl