The other thing to mention about the Multiple Attack Penalty, is that it only applies when you do the same action multiple times. In PF2 it’s anything that has the Attack tag on it which includes grapples, spells, attacks etc. In DC20 it’s only for doing the same type of action multiple times.
Although that causes it to strongly incentivise playing hybrid characters, so it'll be something to keep a close eye on to make sure that characters focused on taking specific kinds of actions aren't losing out on value because "swing weapon and swing weapon" is worse than "cast attack spell and swing weapon" despite having the exact same goal.
@yurisei6732 Alan has explained that, if you are wanting to attack meaningfully, you're going to be better 90% of the time spending extra action points to "upgrade" your attempt instead of many attacks. "I want to spend my whole turn attacking," therefore will look more like putting all of your effort into a single, mighty attack instead of many attacks. You'd spend two action points to attack and give yourself advantage, spend another to use Power Attack (damage increase) and maybe use a Trip maneuver for your last action point to sweep someone off their feet with said big blow. Don't forget, advantage stacks in this game as well, and the higher you roll the more damage you can deal
I liked this format a lot! I don't usually have time to watch streams but I do value your thoughts on game design, so seeing this was a pleasant surprise :))
Same! I saw the full stream video and didn’t click on it despite being curious, simply because of time restrictions. But this edited version was perfect! 👏
Regarding stunned, what's been most enjoyable for me in other systems I've played (PF2, ICON) is how stunned hampers your actions, but doesn't fully remove your turn. You can't take reactions til you clear the condition, and in PF2's case, the stunned condition includes a value that determines how many actions you lose. Unless you're stunned 3 or higher, you still get SOME action on your turn. Conversely, for ICON, you have 2 actions on your turn normally, stunned means you only get 1 and acting immediately ends your turn after (so you can't move after acting). It makes stunned still potent but no longer a "you don't get to play now" button. I feel like PF2's approach would make most sense for this system, especially since you have 4 AP.
This also makes it possible to make spellcasters fun, because you no longer need to be negating every spell cast just to keep monsters able to do anything.
I tried watching the stream and found it difficult, but this condensed format really worked for me so if you want to do something like this again in the future I am down :)
The reason passives and skill/spell DC's start at 8 is because a level 1 character has a +2 proficiency bonus. When adding the given skill, i.e. Int for a wizards spells or wisdom for perception, makes it so that a level 1 character with proficiency as a DC or passive only as many points above 10 ( the commoner stat) as they have points in the related ability score.
In Pathfinder 2, It's actually just the Multiple Attack Penalty. What get's overlooked by those who criticise this is, that simply attacking three times (an Attack costs most of the time 1 Action, you have 3) is suboptimal in the first place. There aren't that many times you'd want to just spam attack and a lot of the martial classes can actually take feats to attack two times very effectively. (Fighters in general are so got at hitting stuff, that they can pull off three attacks) PF2 has a lot of actions that you want to do instead of attacking, the multiple attack penalty "helps" / incentivises to do other things than standing around and bashing something.
9:58 Multiple Check Penalty- I think the reason it doesn't bother me is that coming from someone who has mostly played D&D, at lower levels we don't even have the option to attack multiple times. And it makes sense that at those lower levels, that if you did get to attack again, it would be harder to do so. So while the mechanic itself has the optics of being a hamper to the players, it actually feels like a positive because it's allowing for something that was mechanically not even possible before! At least, that's why I think it doesn't really bother me.
Multiple Check Penalty will be healthy for the game and stop players from spamming 4 attacks each turn and do other things that are flavorful. Not to mention with the new reaction system, you can take as many reactions as you want, but they deduct from the AP of your next turn. So if you're acting outside of your turn, you may not have enough AP to take multiple attacks anyhow when your actual turn comes around. I'd be more than happy to make an attack of opportunity outside of my turn (with no penalty), then when my turn comes around spend 1AP to give my attack advantage, 1AP to attack better (at no disadvantage), then 1AP to move, dodge, etc.
@@1Bearsfan Exactly; this doesn't look organic at all. This system has been in alpha for how long and only now are we really hearing about it from every mouthpiece?
9:14 PF2e actually benefits from using Penalty in it's design for multiple attack penalties. PF2e wants the player to use as many different action as possible on the same turn, therefore they penalize whoever keeps on spamming the same thing. The WOW example doesn't actually work in this context as the only way to avoid the Exhausted penalty in wow was to not play the game lol.
I think you missed the point, or maybe he just didn't explain it well. The point he is making with the WOW story, is that players generally dislike mechanics that are framed as a debuff or punishment, but when that same mechanic is reframed as a buff or reward, players become a lot more receptive to it. So when players were being punished for playing the game, they hated it, but when they were being rewarded for putting it down, they loved it.
@@theposhdinosaur7276 oh yeah i get the psychology trick. I think that it's a bad example because pathfinder wants the players to hate multiple attack penalty. It wants players to avoid it, to use other actions that don't have it. Pf2e uses the same trick but for an opposite effect. So when Trekiros gives this example he clearly uses it as a criticism. Like "never punish - always reward, while secretly punishing" but in case of multiple action penalty, it's clearly intending for players to look for other options they have, other than attacking. While the players in wow only other action was to not play the game.
DC20 has it for pretty much the same reason. There are a lot of different things you can use your action points for, so there is a penalty from using the same action multiple times. It is more beneficial to spend AP to enhance or add an effect to a spell or an attack then to just attack multiple times. This probably also is there to help facilitate teamwork and collaboration over just attacking.
@@ChandlerBaze It's very odd to me that it's only for the same action and not attacking in general. I feel like the math will work out for 2 actions for physical attack and then 2 actions for spell.
@@Akalos1 It is different, but I understand why, because he doesn't just want to disincentive repetitive attacks, but repetitive actions in general. You don't need to be a gish if you want to attack something multiple times without penalty (or a reduced penalty) such as using an action point to take away the disadvantage on an attack or using the sword style maneuver to add a help die to an attack. You can also make an additional attack without penalty if you are dual wielding. I like the idea of pumping everything in a single attack, but I am also a person who loves those types of characters. Also most spells cost 2 AP (excluding cantrips) and a weapon attack costs 1 AP. You would also have a your class features to spend AP on and there are more things you can do besides just attacking.
I really like the passive being lower than the average for that skill. In D&D5e if you build for high passive perception, it discourages you from rolling. I'm playing a high-perception character who I specifically built to have high perception, but I've deliberately avoided building passive perception because of this. With Observant, my passive perception would be as high as the result of 15 on the die. That's a 25% chance of rolling higher than my passive, a 5% chance of matching it, and 70% of rolls going under it. I specifically chose not to take it because I don't want my character sheet encouraging me to argue with the DM about my passive scores. It's also kinda dumb that it's possible to be really good with a skill and still be better off not rolling that skill.
Regarding the format: I'd prefered a 'normal' review but am not much a fan of life streams... so this edited, hybrid form is very okay for me. D20: DnD is already very simple and low consequential... I'm under the influence D20 even more so. I don't do Kickstarter (cost to high and to much hassle outside the US), so I don't matter though.
I think the flanking being just +2 is because of advantage averaging out to be about +4/5 give or take which in this system not only means hitting easier but also more damage. And if that were the case then every fight would have a congo line of people trying to get flanking. Funny as that would be I actually would hate having to flank on every attack just to keep up with my party members' output.
@@ДюсековИльяс If you’re running things like DnD5E, then yes. If you’re using an action system with smaller spaces (like here or PF2E), or if melee options hit significantly harder than ranged and there are different reactive strike options and you have a lot of positioning maneuvers available (again like here and PF2E), then it still has a lot of interactive value without the conga lock.
This sounds like a neat system that has a lot of potential. I like the action point system because it removes an issue I have in games like Baulder's Gate 3, namely that if something is a Bonus Action, I should logically be able to use my Action for the round to do it. Not vice-versa, for balance, but still the number of times I've been in combat in BG3 and had to effectively forfiet a character's turn because what I wanted to do with them was a Bonus Action and I'd had to use the BA for something else is too often. So the Action Point system effectively takes care of that, while not feeling as limited by the 3 AP from Pathfinder 2E. Will definitely keep an eye on this!
Overall, I have to say you have piqued my interest in it! I think it would have been helpful to include some sections about basics - like damage being based on how high you broke the enemies AC instead of die - which makes some comments make more sense. Definitely keeping my eye on it! The team play and creativity non-penalty sound amazing!
Makes more sense but is poorer design harder to balance and with greater focus on the impact of hit bonus, potentially increasing the unbounded accuracy problem.
Before i even watch the video. NO, it is not the new D&D, it is its own thing and we need to allow it to be its own thing and enjoy it on its own merits.
The low damage and health of DC20 has me just slightly worried about the actual spells themselves. Having one damage for standard attacks is a neat idea, but how will this impact multi-target spells like magic missile, eldritch blast, or scorching ray (not even touching AOEs)? How will they be different from each other or regular attacks? In this setting, a 5e spell like Magic missile would do at least 3 damage, but if it was still 1 magic point and 1 action point (like 1 level 1 slot in 5e), that would be pretty early op while martials are getting multi-attack penalties. Can anyone who has seen the actual spell definitions describe how/whether a spell like magic missile exists in DC20, or perhaps speak to spell effect variety?
Here's how Magic Missile works in DC20 (at least in the alpha 0.7): Magic Missile Destruction Cost: 2AP + 1MP Range: 10 spaces Duration: Instantaneous You attempt to fire out glowing darts of magical force. Make a DC 10 Spell Check. Success: You create 2 Missiles. Success (each 5): +1 Missile. Failure: only 1 Missile. Each Missile automatically deals 1 True damage to its target. Each missile may have the same or different targets. Mana Point Enhancements Damage: Spend 1 MP for 1 more Missile. Range: Spend 1 MP to increase the range to 15 Spaces. And since Magic Missile is a pretty "weird" spell in that it doesn't really take the opponent's defenses into account, here's an AoE spell: Burning Flames Destruction Cost: 2 AP + 1 MP Range: Self (10 Spaces) Duration: Instantaneous A brilliant flame manifests around you. Choose a type of area: Line, Cone, or Sphere. You are the Spell’s Point of Origin. • Line: The Spell affects every target in a 1 Space wide and 10 Space long line. • Cone: The Spell creates a 3 Space long Cone. • Sphere: The Spell affects every target within a 2 Space range of you. Make a Spell Check against every target's PD within the Spell’s area. Hit: The target takes 2 Fire damage. Mana Point Enhancements Burning: Spend 1 MP to force all targets to Save against Burning for 1 minute. Range: Spend 1 MP to change the origin point of the Spell to 15 Spaces (instead of Self). Most spells work something like this. Some cantrips only cost 1 AP, but most spells cost 2 AP + 1 MP. We might see some more powerful spells later - right now the alpha only goes up to 2nd level. So you can potentially do 2 spells in one turn, but you'll be affected by the multiple check penalty and won't be able to do anything else including movement, so it might not always be the best idea. There doesn't seem to be many spells which involve saving throws. There's still a few, like Command, which is a spell check contested by a charisma save. But for spells which deal damage, it seems most of them are spell check vs either the target's physical, or mental defense, which are basically just AC but for different damage types.
The "bonus instead of penalty" thingy relies on people not understanding how the game works (in this case not knowing that XP got halved overall). Also, there's an opposing way to frame it: People want to use bonuses and avoid penalties. Introducing the penalty made the players not want to play after two hours, because they lowered XP disincentivized that. *That was the intended effect, but it didn't feel good, because people liked playing.* When they made it a bonus, I bet people went on to play for *at least* two hours per day, because they wanted to get all of that sweet bonus XP. *This is the opposite of the design goal, which was to not make people play for extensive amounts of time in one sitting.* So while popular, I don't think the change was a success. Going to DC 20, a bonus would result in people wanting to attempt every check once to get the bonus, while the penalty reinforces the idea that doing the same thing over and over again leads to unhealthy gameplay. Similarly, in PF2e the multiple attack penalty incentivizes coming up with other things to do for your second and especially third action, while a bonus would incentivize doing at least two attacks to use "the whole bonus". Also, people can freely look up monster ACs (presumably unlike WoWs XP gains) and they'd call bullshit on these "impossible to hit" monsters, because the point of comparison would be the raw attack modifier without a "few attack bonus".
I'll wait until I see what people do in an unbiased actual play. That everyone is falling over themselves praising this system is setting off alarm bells in my head, especially after reading the rules. I am very hopeful that everyone praising this game is doing so for valid reasons, however. Once the playtest becomes available (when is that?) I will definitely have my group give it a whirl. This certainly seems the most promising of the new contenders, but again, those alarm bells.
The Alpha has been available for play for a while now and the Beta should be available as well, most likely soon after the Kickstarter campaign ends. And there have been a couple of game sessions run on the DC20 system by Dungeon Coach with several D&D youtubers that are available to watch and see as well if you haven't.
Yes all this fanboying and ppl from 1 chanell coming to say its THE BEST ttrpg of recent years bothers me. If its cool we will see. I see good things and bad ones like str based wizard. I want less bullshit in my games thank you. Recent dnd games looks like meme storage. Sometimes less of a choice is having more choices imo. If you happend to actually play this please say some words here. I rather hear from sceptical.
@@Gavert3 I started playing the game in November. I liked the bones and feel of the system enough to want to stick with it and help fix the issues I think are present in the system, to the point where I was recruited for the dev team. If you think that means I now have too much bias, I understand, but there's a reason I became this passionate about it; even in a partially finished state it's become my favorite heroic fantasy ttrpg out of both editions of pathfinder, 5e, 4e, and 13th age. I'm not familiar enough with other games in the genrespace so maybe I would eventually have found another I liked more.
@@godminnette2 By all means I will look from time to time to see how DC20 is doing. I just don't want to jump into alfa/beta. Good luck to all dev team coz its not easy task. Will have 100 ppl from Poland server to convert IF DC20 will won over our hearts. But please for the love of all that is holy do not do to much overtime like all americans do. Take care m8.
To the "Wow Thing" you reference: AFAIK this concept came from Everquest. I remember reading the patch notes in which they explained this concept. They realized that it was always better for them to buff everything but Class #1 instead of nerfing the Class #1. So all mobs got an hp bonus, every class but class #1 got basically the same % dmg boost and people weren't bothered in the same way as if Class #1 had gotten that very same % nerf. They mostly managed to keep this up, I believe, but sometimes something was so broken it had to be nerfed.
Something I noticed when creating a character is that DC20s Mastery seems a bit... much. You get 5 skill points and each of those can be 2 skill or trade or language points. In the end I've found myself struggling to find things to put skill points into because of the level cap.
I personally hate Stunned and Paralyze as they are written in basically everything except P2E, so I integrated it as best I could with 5E and R20 here. It's a bit more complicated but as Spector said "Fun = Meaningful Decisions / Time". I reworded them to make the players have to make harder choices, not take them away: - While stunned you only have access to 2 of the following actions: - Full Round Action - Movement - Bonus Action - Reaction - While paralyzed you only have access to 2 of the following action, but lose your Movement: - Full Round Action - Bonus Action - Reaction - You cannot use abilities like Action Surge while Stunned or Paralyzed.
I think at the end of the day it matters little if it does some game design elements better than dnd. What matters is the support and the material, so you can easily play it in your format of choice.
Multi action penalty is what lets classes opt into builds so you can get feats that negate the penalty and that can scale for a few times , like basic attacks. Some late game class might have a 3 same action penalty fee waiver but the 4th is at disadvantage etc
@Mr_Maiq_The_Liar (comment disappeared?) That's the thing: I don't view the MAP as a problem, but a feature in pathfinder. Even at extreme examples, a team supporting a single martial can, even at level 1, stack enough buffs and debuffs to make a level 5 monster not only worry about critical hits, but make multiple attacks land at the same regularity as at least an agile weapon. Even against an extreme example of a level 5 creature with an undebuffed ac of 25 (meaning a level 1 fighter lands a hit on an unbuffed 17) it is almost always worth it to at least follow up with two more attacks, doubly so if the fighter has exacting strike. Certainly, in a world where the buffs and debuffs have not been stacked, the fighter will want to use their actions on other things, but that's, again, a feature. Now whether those attacks are "Hit it with my sword," "grapple," "trip," or the new and improved "disarm" depends on how the level 5 creature's action economy is looking at this stage of the fight. As you note, this gets even better at higher levels. As both of us have already pointed out, pathfinder promotes teamwork and action diversity. I view this as a welcome feature, otherwise everyone would be burning actions on attack like it appears what is being promoted in dc20. Regarding DC20, I read the Alpha rules and I noticed that you can spend an additional action to make your attack hit (by conferring advantage) and then follow up with another attack of a different type (say a spell) to completely negate the penalty altogether. Moreover, as you point out, you can spend an action to make the first attack even more likely to hit and then use two actions on the second attack to disregard the penalty altogether (without even factoring in the combat maneuvers). I'd have to see it played to see what this does to the game, but it sounds like I'm going to want to "Attack, Attack." every turn. Moreover, if I understand the rules correctly, my reactions only eat up my next turn's actions, so alpha striking and then having four possible reactions seems to be the name of the game. To me, this seems problematic, but I'd have to see unbiased actual play to see how it pans out. My alarm bells are ringing, however.
Thanks for making this video. I saw the 5 hr stream vid and was like... that looks cool but i dont have time for 5 hrs! This summary was everything i wanted out of that, cheers!
I'd love to see a similar review done for MCDM's new rpg, when you get a chance! Your analysis towards DC20 is spot-on and very insightful, so I'd be excited to see it applied toward a number of non-DnD rpgs
this was a really cool summary of a stream i seem to have missed and now wish had seen. and at the same time, a detailed enough pitch for what DC20 feels like and could be played like .. I wont say no to other videos in this style
Savage Worlds also has a multiple action penalty. Some abilities can get around that penalty. It is not a problem. I think the only people with a problem with it just want to be all powerful and probably use cheat softweare on video games.
Nah it's not that. The thing that is offputting about multiple action penalty is that it forces you to engage with the system more, which not every player is comfortable doing. A lot of players like to have a simple turn cycle where they don't have to keep track of too many things, and multiple action penalty states that if you do that you will be useless. That's part of why 5e is so frightened of making martial manoeuvres a baseline thing - it needs to present the main martial options as the simple "you walk here and attack X times" loop. Multiple action penalty also makes it way harder to balance material, which is offputting to homebrewers when not supported by homebrewing guides that give homebrewers the same knowledge the designers have.
I get why is cool for players, but I feel it gives you a lot of new shiny stuff to make a character, but zero emphasis on how to design monsters or encounters. Maybe I'm thinking about it like a videogame? I believe that encounter design and PC design should go together. There's also the fact that if monsters use the same AP system tracking 4 points for an encounter with 6 wolves will be a nightmare for DMs Overall it sounds good on paper, but nothing here tells me it's gonna be worth learning the system to run it as a gm 🤔
Yeah that's how a lot of these post-5e systems are going. A lot of character creation flash to entice the player side (focused primarily on "flexibility" and "freedom" with things like prime attribute and build-a-bear races, rather than unique mechanics and evocative themes), but little in the way of useful structures and paradigms. DC20 doesn't even have a DM's guide book as far as I'm aware, and the monster book is listed as a kickstarter "addon". Although I don't think many of them are doing this intentionally, the consequence is a product that will sell well but rarely get played, because DMs don't buy it.
@@yurisei6732 Yeah. It's also the case that the system seems to be built entirely around combat. From all videos I've seen about it I'm yet to come across anything related to exploration and social interaction... Like if the lack of support for those things in 5e isn't critized enough.
@@XvicvicX In fairness they do say they have a few things for exploration, but since one of them is "the ability to abstract an entire dungeon run to one skill challenge", I'm not optimistic. I should probably write up a formula for creating a post-5e system actually, it'd make it easier to criticise the bad ones. It'll start with "removing as many mutually exclusive choices from character creation as possible to appeal to the people who view these as restrictions on their ability to powergame rather than as ludonarrative resonances".
Combo spellcasting upcasts the spell is a very interesting mechanics, but it also doubles your casters' combined output. How do you keep the martials feeling like they didn't brick their character by forgoing spells?
The stream was a fun deep(?) dive into the game. And consequentially this was a great format for delivering a similar experience to people with less time on their hands (for watching whole streams).
We tried DC20 and we loved it, but we also did kind of a broken combo by mistake - a bard, a barbarian and a warlord(commander). It was extreme fun and the mechanics were fairly intuitive after using them 2-3 times, but we (and by we I mean I, the barbarian) stumbled upon a problem. There's so many little sources of damage - +1 here, +1 there, +1 under the rock, +1 on the shelf behind you, +1 in your back pocket, that I actually spent more time trying to figure out if I'm missing a +1 somewhere than I did for my whole entire turn, including decision making. And for a thing that's supposed to speed up the game by eliminating the second roll for damage, it did anything but. Although, as I said, this was an edge case, because we had a combo where two players basically sacrifice their turns and rolls to buff one player. And this might be better if not everything is done by one player.
This is an excellent illustration of DC20's unthoughtful design. The main thing that made 5e work was the drive to eliminate bonus stacking. That's the core of what bounded accuracy is. Even PF2e didn't go fully back to bonus stacking, saying that at most you're only ever going to have 2 non-static bonuses to any single roll. DC20 never thought about the way that "streamlining" the damage system was actually going to add back in a bunch of bonus stacking tedium.
@@yurisei6732 the other problem is that, at least from Version 7.0, you get a bonus to damage on level 1 and on level 2 for basically every martial class. And I dunno if other levels are going to be like that, too. And if they are, then it's gonna be a whoooole lot of +1 and +2 damage to add up. On the thing about bonus stacking - when we were playing, I think the one saving grace is that while I had to calculate a lot of damage as a barbarian, our bard and warlord didn't, since their turns were basically to just give me a help action and then chill. And I guess that basically made it so that all 3 of our turns were rolled into just mine, as their turns were really short.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy Yeah you probably don't get a ton more table time from this, but you still have to track a bunch of tiny bonuses. And this will be a problem for the future, because as more subclasses and classes and spells and manoeuvres are added, there'll be more and more sources of these small bonuses, and they'll probably get more action-efficient meaning you're using more of them at once. The nice thing about 5e is that because it's quite difficult to stack non-static bonuses, it's hard to add new features that creep the bonus stacking; you tend to just get alternatives rather than additives.
That's my biggest problem with it. It's designed entirely by people who have only played 5e and only designed bundles of "wouldn't it be cool if" 5e house rules. They recreated lots of ideas that were already in 3rd and 4th edition without realizing it, and are presenting them as something brand new. The endless stacking bonuses and penalties is something 5e did away with and made the game much more accessible, which is why it ended up being so popular. It's okay to deviate from that but it's not necessarily "better," it's just adding complexity for people who like complexity.
@@TheMinskyTerrorist Right - and if you *do* want a game that's a bit more about bonus stacking, PF2e is already a well-developed and popular system that has strong mechanical identity and robust balance. Why pick up an unproven third party system that chances are isn't even intended to be good?
@Trekiros At the 5 min you clarify that you are talking about a flat check for a PC doing something not covered by a skill. If the PC is attempting to do something truly unique that cant fall under a skill or trade then the GM is having to make a call anyways and could easily adjust the DC to reflect how har that can be. I think it would be very difficult to rules codify every possible player choice without making the system to restrictive. Also it would be the same as a player using a skill they don't have mastery in too.
I kind of disagree with the concept of the prime modifier meaning that you have a meaningful choice for your attributes. Imo it flattens out the choice, in trying to make there be no wrong choice it reduces the mechanical impact of the choice. I dont think its a worse implementation than dnds, but nor do I think its better. For that matter, its a design space dnd has already dabbled in in past and current editions.
yeah, the first thing I thought about this was "Just remove the attributes entirely and tell the player that they have one +3, two +2 and three +1 and so on. So that they can spread them around whatever skills they want. And then attack can always be +3." It seems from the video that the only other place that the ability scores come up is in AC score, but then why ever not make an Agility character? What other measures are there that are determined by specific abilities and not the prime one? Maybe I don't understand something, I didn't read the book, so please take this comment with that in mind.
@@icevlad148 HP is only determined by Might, Intelligence grants you more (Or less in the case of a negative modifier) skills, Agility adds to AC like you said, and Charisma fuels a resource that allows you to give yourself advantage on saving throws (No actions required). There are more areas they effect but these are essentially the "Core" details each attribute effects.
@@icevlad148 I also haven't read the system. I do know that a couple of updates back they added specific benefits for each attribute to help address this issue, ac became agility only, charisma gives grit (which does... something), and I can't remember the other two.
I was a bit skeptical of prime at the very beginning but it really ends up working well. You’re not locked into only considering combat when working on attributes so can focus on other reasons for choosing various attribute spreads.
much like the WOW example, if they made Prime attribute instead of "your highest ability score is your prime attribute" they changed it to "your prime score is 3 and independent of your attribute" I think people wouldn't complain about it so much. We've been use to so many class features scaling off your "proficiency bonus" and your "class level" people wouldn't question it if a different stat determined hits than might Sure, barbarians don't have to be 'might based' to make attacks, but the barbarian class is built around tanking abilities and might determines your health. I suppose there's more 'weight' to a decision to play barbarian if doing so confines you to a character whose highest ability score is also might, but on the other hand what class features you have is an incredibly weighty decision even without that and, due to the changes to your ability scores deriving more of your character's abilities, which ability score you make your maximum is also an incredibly weighty decision even if it doesn't lock you out of certain classes. Two heavily weighty heavily important decisions back to back like that are probably more interesting than in your game to game gameplay than one decision that informs all major aspects of your characters mechanics, build, and playstyle. What class you play is just not a decision that is in a serious need of being made even more important to your characters identity and build
Haven't played it, but am a $65 backer. With regards to the multiple attacks disadvantage, it feels weird and forced in an attempt to make people get creative. Logistically speaking: If you wave your arm: up-down, up-down, up-down, up-down it's going to require less skill or luck than moving it in up, right, down, left.. right? Why should shooting 4 fireballs be more difficult than shooting a bow, putting it back on your back, then slashing someone with a sword, then sheathing it and then slashing someone with a greatsword, then putting it back on your back and then grappling them? One of those sounds much easier to perform to me, so I'll just be playing without that rule. I think it's a great rule to discourage noobs from going: Slash, slash, slash, slash every turn, and doing nothing else; but for people with slightly more experience it only limits you. I feel like I should clarify, I love the system and what I've seen of it so far. I just don't want to be mid cool moment and get dragged back to the table upon realisation 2 of my attacks missed. Especially a big fan of the cleaner character sheet and superior spellcasting and Agility stat. Very good changes. All in all, I have faith this'll shake up the tabletop community and my own games quite a bit.
Does anyone know what app he's using for his whiteboard (the one he uses @ 7:42 )? Looks awesome. (Also, good video haha) EDIT: Found it. It's called Excalidraw. Cool stuff.
What I appreciate with this review is that you said it has rough edges. So far all I've heard is good things and it worried me. Im not saying its bad but hearing there is a downside to makes it feel more honest. I want to hear the good and the bad
My wife refuses to play PF2 because of the multiple attack penalty. She isn't a super strategic player so it feels like the game is mad at her for just wanting to attack the enemy and be happy only doing that
I like the style of this video, but the visual effects on the edited in bits are annoying. Thanks for the introduction to this system, I hadn't heard of it before.
What if Stunned knocked the character down on the Initiative Order instead of limiting what they can do on their turn? I do think 5e Stunned is terrible in practice, but I'm curious to know how a delay in their turn would fair instead in practice?
Definitely worse unless your initiative track is a countdown system rather than a loop system. Initiative bumping is way harder to balance because stun effects no longer translate to a specific proportion of lost turn, and harder to prevent stunlocking because there's no longer a "stunned condition" that you can say can't be had more than X stacks at once. Another significant impact of initiative bumping is that it frontloads player actions more. When stunned reduces actions, the monster still acts early but takes half a turn. It can and should use that half turn to make it harder for the players to stun it again, such as by killing them or by giving them conditions. When you're initiative bumping, the monster doesn't take any turn at all until the players run out of ways to bump initiative, which can often result in sweeps. The nice thing about having stuns reduce actions rather than delay turns is that you can always have a minimum amount of monster action no matter how much stun the players have access to.
@@yurisei6732 Thank you for this! I was very curious as to why this wasnt more common and I think your explanation makes a good argument as to why it isnt a more common thing... Follow up though, can you briefly explain how a countdown initiative system would work? This is the first time I've heard of such a thing.
@@lordjalor Sure. For some examples of this, see Shadowrun 5 and Feng Shui 2. Basically, when you roll initiative, then instead of your result being where you get placed in a turn order, your result is like a number of points you can spend in a round to take actions. Once everyone has got an initiative score, the player with the highest initiative chooses an action to take, then loses an amount of initiative based on the action taken. This reduces their initiative. Then, you see who has the highest initiative now, and that player takes a turn. This keeps going like this until every combatant has 0 initiative left, after which initiative is rolled again. In Shadowrun, you always lose 10 initiative after taking an action, and your initiative score is determined by rolling some number of d6s and adding a flat modifier. A character not specifically spec'd for combat will usually have initiatives between 1d6+4 and 2d6+8. If you fully invest in combat, you might have something like 5d6+10. This means a combat-spec'd character will both act earlier and take more actions. They might even take multiple actions in a row, against only slow enemies: If your initiative result is 30, and everyone else has 19 or lower, then after your first turn, you then have 20, and you're still the highest in initiative. It's an interesting way to do initiative, one I personally think is better suited to low combat games that want to make "specing for combat" a real thing and not a default. I don't think I'd use it in a game like D&D where everyone's supposed to be a good fighter.
I just want this to push game design forward. I'll never play it because I don't think the core principles are very good, but I'm glad people are trying to make good general systems instead of cripplingly overspecializing
Trying to make general systems is why they keep sucking. System specialisation is the only way to get a TTRPG that properly supports the campaign being run.
Can we get the audio fixed? Most of this video is so quiet I have to raise everything to max and still can barely hear it but when you speak as editor its so loud I have to turn it back down. Even the whoosh sfx is louder than the majority of the talking.
I'm intrigued by DC 20, but I don't want to get invested in a game with a character build arms race, as has been the case with D&D for almost a quarter century now.
Overall it sounds a lot like "PF2e at home" to me. As if someone was trying to get people to play Pathfinder by making it look more like DnD5e. That's not to say the game is bad, of course, I just don't think I'd ever play it over PF2e. Also, while that "teamwork casting" makes for cool scenes, doesn't it just incentivize building a party where every character is the same?
DC20 does a lot of things to incentivise building a party where every character is the same. This is the downside of these "hyper-flexible" character creators, it starts to remove the trade-offs and just lets you take all the best things.
Being good at math, and using that math to balance the game, makes a huge difference when working on the game. Most games are written by people that are, or want to be, writers. They try to ignore the math.
Doesn't look like it. DC20 is doing the same sorts of things that a lot of post-OGL systems are doing, where it tries to cater to too many audiences. Just take the "Prime Attribute" thing. This is a perfect representation of the problem - some audiences today feel that roleplay and mechanics matching each other is *actively undesirable*, so DC20, frightened to alienate them, adds Prime Attribute, a system that means a Strength 6, Dex 6, Int 16 character is equally good at swinging a sword as a Strength 16 Dex 16 character. And as if that's not bad enough, there's even the Prime Prime Attribute variant rule that says your prime attribute is just the maximum possible value, meaning the Str 6 Dex 6 Int 6 character is also equally good at swinging a sword. It's absurd. It's attempting to solve a problem via streamlining instead of diversification. Yes, it would be cool if you could play an intelligent fighter and not feel like you were missing out. The way that a system should approach that is by giving Intelligence a different value for Fighters, not just making "being smart" magically cause you to be physically stronger. it's also ridiculous that a Strength 16 character with 0s in every other stat is equally as perceptive as the wisest humans. Once you're using prime attribute to avoid all the meaningful consequences of having attributes, just remove the attribute system entirely. And doing this doesn't make choices more valid, it makes choices arbitrary. In a character creation game, what makes the ability to make choices fun is synergy. But having synergistic choices necessarily requires having unsynergistic choices. Prime Attribute is an idea designed to eliminate unsynergistic choices, but in doing so it also removes synergistic choice and makes the ability to choose not matter. The goal when increasing the level of choice in a character creation system should be to increase the number of synergistic options, specifically via broadening the kinds of synergy available, not to reduce the number of ways you can make a bad choice.
@@yurisei6732 wow that was a great explanation. I didn’t really fully examínate the consequences of the prime attribute system. The first time I read about it I had my concerns, mainly with the role-play aspect of it. How does a “strong” wizard necessarily mean he is better at spell casting? Some things make more sense than others like an intelligent fighter who is not as strong but knows where to strike. But like you said, it becomes arbitrary to have any attributes in the first place, and, while it satisfies everyone, it does nothing special. I’ve been looking into DC20 and Nimble as alternative systems to run with my next campaign. So far, I like many features from both, but Nimble so far has been more appealing.
Thank you so much for putting into words why I instinctually knew I could never enjoy a game that used this kind of Prime Attribute system. The attributes stop meaning anything and so there's no mechanical satisfaction to having a high-Int Barbarian, just a feeling of "wow I wouldn't expect that".
@@brilobox2 Did you notice how you just made the assumption that I was imagining the 16 Int character as a Wizard and the 16 Str character as a Fighter? I never mentioned classes. That 16 Int character is actually also a Fighter; and it makes no sense that he would be exactly as good at wielding a sword as the guy who is twice as strong and twice as agile.
Pretty much everything that people seem to think are "great" changes in relation to DnD are what I dislike about this game. I like 6 Attributes, and I think its silly that all Attributes are going to give you the exact same type of befenits, ala Prime Mod. There is literally no choice. I like the "Score" AND Mod better than just one number. If I understand the HP in DC20, that seems tiny, and not rolling damage is NOT a time saver. Some of these changes when applied to say a LARP might make sense, for a host of reasons, but dont make sense in a TT game. As for the AP system, I have the SAME compliant as I did when Pathfinder is touted about these similar mechanic. They SAY you have three/four actions to do what you want including attacking and THEN penalize you when what you want to do is attack multiple times. Why? If an attack costs 1 pt/action and you tell me I can spend them as I want, why would attacking more get me more penalties when do OTHER actions dont....in Pathfinder they say you have three ACTIONS but then set the cost to most spells to cost 2? Dumb....I assume the same for DX20, though to be fair calling them action points semantically does seem better as a manner of logic. Basically, this just continues the trend of taking a simplified game, making it more so, then adding silly changes and restrictions and tossing out some of the core things people enjoy, ie roll dice in a TT game, for the false idea it will save time. There might be elements that are salvageable but this has less flexibility, and makes characters just bland copies of each other. First impression on the classes was meh, and side not, I think his take on the Paladin and why he didnt include it is BS (ya its a personal opinion there.) Overall, I dont think this solves the actual weaknesses of the 5e system, with two exceptions: Adding Exh when you got to 0 and brought back up, and stacking of Adv and Disavd. Those two changes are good but easily enough to just implement in 5e. The other changes just seem to make the game more bland...perhaps wanting to be more a narrative than a game, but hey if it appeals to some, great. But for me, not worth the switch.
Well about pf, the penalty exist to make martials more unique from spellcasters. Cause spellcasters actually can only cast a spell, then move or something. But a martial character with all those extra feats, can just take the feats to remove the debuffs amd make them actually more rational to attack three times. It's just that, without looking at feats, yeah it sucks balls
@@ДюсековИльяс 1. That is a terrible design. 2. Its unnecessary. 3. Its not obvious to the players. 4. Its a bait and switch on the whole concept. Like I said, I think DC20 calling it action POINTS allows for someone to understand that some things cost more than others and makes sense that spells might need more action points to be spent. Hence little to no multiple spells per turn, though even that I think is silly. But throwing in the penalty for martials or even just wanting to attack multiple times as a caster is dumb. Definitely the thing I see as the most dishonest pt when talking about these systems...people keep saying its so great, but they ignore the obvious. I think 5e is better, cleaner, more undertstandable, and honest. IF the AP or 3 Action system were in fact what they claimed I would think they were better. Also, this isnt the way to differentiate casters and martials or close the gap in power. For starters, casters get new spell slots every level and new spell levels every other level. As such, there should not be a single DEAD level for any maritial and they may in fact need a couple features per level. Some can be ribbon features, but at least one good feature per level either from class or subclass. Second, they need to STOP being so stingy with whatever resouces they may use, whether it be manuever die, Psi points, Ki, etc. Third, DONT nerf the casters or their spells. that is the WRONG approach.
@@shadowmancer99 ah, I see the problem here. People who watch this channel are either incapable of comprehending that 5e is majorly mechanically flawed and you can often break it by accident, or are invested in hating 5e and only playing PF2 to spite it.
@@brilobox2 Its not mechanically superior to have everything be essentially homogenous. There not being a significant difference in the stats, in what they bring to the character just makes it entirely boring. 5e is NOT a complicated game, its pretty basic compared to any of the other versions minus the boxed sets that came out and which I started. My hope was that One Dnd would have addressed this by making a more advanced set, improve options, and put the terror back in the monsters. Instead, not only is the One DnD version mechanically weaker/MORE homogenous than 2014, but the monsters dont appear from the examples to have been improved in the least not to mention they further leaned in the fuzzification of the game.....I mean really...how does a wheelchair in a DUNGEON make any sense? Or what is so epic adventure about dwarves baking? Not all the art is terrible, but there are some terrible art. That isnt to say that there are NO improvements in 2024 but its pretty much in the wrong direction. Which if we circle back to DC20, I actually think he had ONE really good idea in condensing the features of 1-20 to 1-10 and adding 11-20 more stuff...but then undid that great choice with just making everything else so generic. The problem with both 2024 and DC20 is that there ARENT consequential choices....no matter what you choose it all leads to the same basic result and that is boring...in putting "balance" as the goal, nothing can actually stand out. Which is too bad. Well that and the fact that 2024 still did martials dirty.
I don't like that mechanic. I don't think it fixes the healing issue, if anything I feel that if someone is in the minus hit points I would just tell them it's cheaper and faster to roll a new character. There is only one solution, buffing PC hit points. DM's hate powerful healing, players will not heal players negative points of with hit points. 0 is their best option and DM's also hate that. The only solution is for players to be harder to take down, so players don't need to rely on healing and healing isn't buff so enemies can't last longer. And because we are not buffing the damage, DM's won't get cheated. I have to call it on, this is just absord. The whole controversy about the healing and yo-yo is at best childish. Therei s only one solution to this and someone gets hurt. I know I sound rude, but it's clear as the day. As a DM myself, I don't feel threaten by any of these. It's just, just dumb.
My big problem with this game is the cost. $40 for a digital copy of the core rules of a poorly formatted beta seems extortionate. $95 if you want the full rules and a few short adventures. I felt the same when DC was charging people who volunteered to playtest for access to the Alpha rules. Those people are now paying again and will pay a third time when the game is released.
@@Chris3s Understandable, If you have time I highly encourage checking out the Alpha that completely free now. If you like what you see you're not out any money, but at least now know if its something you want to follow for the future.
as someone who is pationate about pf2 and doesn't really like 5e i can see more of the side for 5e on this and as such i'll read it but it's not something i feel a desire to buy
Prime attribute is a bad idea. Said it before in another video. It makes all character roll the same always and removes the narrative and the logic from the game while at the same time removing the purpose of all other attributes. Other than modify stats, attributes do nothing. You dont USE them. They're just there. Illogically describing a character.
I suggest reading the attributes descriptions. Might gives you Rest points for healing during Rests Agility gives you the distance you can jump Charisma gives you Grit Points (Helps with Saves/ reduce damage in combat) INT gives you skill points (that having at least 1 mastery in the skill allows you to help another PC in a check)
What the previous commenter said. Read the system. The prime isn't applied to absolutely everything. Skills use a variety of attributes.attributes contribute to other things than combat capabilities. I get why you are saying this though, and it makes sense, but he has put effort into other uses for the attributes.
They’re important for saves, for skills, for trades, and for certain key secondary features. Attributes still mean something, but you don’t have to focus solely on attacks.
Prime affects attack rolls, spell checks and awareness. If all you do is striking and casting, then yes. You roll prime all day in combat. That's a way you can play. However, that doesn't mean different stats don't matter. If you want to grapple you want might. If you want to identify enemies and their weaknesses for your party to exploit, you want intelligence. If you want to sneak past enemy lines to take out priority targets, agility fuels stealth. Those are 3 different fighters that go beyond I swing my sword hard, smart or fast. You can start out a character with stat arrays all the way from 3/1/0/0 to 3/3/0/-2 with just the default options. But there's a catch, you can't increase a stat to 4 until level 5. So the attribute points you get in the meantime always diversify your character. So you can either be 2 of the above mentioned fighters at the same time, or you can build a more balanced fighter that levels out it's weaknesses, but still is amazing at one thing. But it gets better. Do you want to multi class your fighter into a Gish with a wizard talent? Prime is your highest score, and since you can have both max might and max intelligence, you are totally free to make your character swing a sword with might and cast spells with intelligence. Some of the designs and solutions take some getting used to, but there's a lot of creative freedom for you to express and play your characters.
@GutisFive I read them. I know the rule. My point is that attributes are the character, not it's stats. Stats apply whe things happen to the character, not when the character acts. This puts the focus of attributes outside of the character. Poor design, of you ask me, since this means the character is a function on the system, not a being within a world
Let me explain my issue with the Penalty in both Pathfinder and DC20. They tell you have X actions and you CAN do the same thing multiple times if you want. Then they hit you with a penalty if you want to simply attack X times cause they want to force you to play in their style. Hate this. Compare that to say Old Vampire (WoD). You have a Dice Pool. NORMALLY you would only attack once cause you would get your full Dice Pool, BUT if you want to, you can SPLIT your Dice POOL and attack as many times as you can split the pool. This leaves the decision to the player and the penalty is of splittng your attention is universal to any additional actions you might take that round. THIS makes sense, and is potentially offset if you know a particular power, Celerity or Temporis. If you tell someone they have X actions they should be free to take them however the PLAYER decides, NOT how the game developers want you to play.
Things like combo spellcasting and teamwork maneuvers should be staples of combat-heavy games.
The other thing to mention about the Multiple Attack Penalty, is that it only applies when you do the same action multiple times. In PF2 it’s anything that has the Attack tag on it which includes grapples, spells, attacks etc.
In DC20 it’s only for doing the same type of action multiple times.
Although that causes it to strongly incentivise playing hybrid characters, so it'll be something to keep a close eye on to make sure that characters focused on taking specific kinds of actions aren't losing out on value because "swing weapon and swing weapon" is worse than "cast attack spell and swing weapon" despite having the exact same goal.
@yurisei6732 Alan has explained that, if you are wanting to attack meaningfully, you're going to be better 90% of the time spending extra action points to "upgrade" your attempt instead of many attacks. "I want to spend my whole turn attacking," therefore will look more like putting all of your effort into a single, mighty attack instead of many attacks. You'd spend two action points to attack and give yourself advantage, spend another to use Power Attack (damage increase) and maybe use a Trip maneuver for your last action point to sweep someone off their feet with said big blow.
Don't forget, advantage stacks in this game as well, and the higher you roll the more damage you can deal
its for the same type of check not action
I liked this format a lot! I don't usually have time to watch streams but I do value your thoughts on game design, so seeing this was a pleasant surprise :))
+
Same! I saw the full stream video and didn’t click on it despite being curious, simply because of time restrictions. But this edited version was perfect! 👏
Regarding stunned, what's been most enjoyable for me in other systems I've played (PF2, ICON) is how stunned hampers your actions, but doesn't fully remove your turn. You can't take reactions til you clear the condition, and in PF2's case, the stunned condition includes a value that determines how many actions you lose. Unless you're stunned 3 or higher, you still get SOME action on your turn.
Conversely, for ICON, you have 2 actions on your turn normally, stunned means you only get 1 and acting immediately ends your turn after (so you can't move after acting).
It makes stunned still potent but no longer a "you don't get to play now" button. I feel like PF2's approach would make most sense for this system, especially since you have 4 AP.
This also makes it possible to make spellcasters fun, because you no longer need to be negating every spell cast just to keep monsters able to do anything.
I tried watching the stream and found it difficult, but this condensed format really worked for me so if you want to do something like this again in the future I am down :)
This is one of the best reviews I’ve seen of dc20 bc you actually go into game design theory. Really appreciate it!
The reason passives and skill/spell DC's start at 8 is because a level 1 character has a +2 proficiency bonus. When adding the given skill, i.e. Int for a wizards spells or wisdom for perception, makes it so that a level 1 character with proficiency as a DC or passive only as many points above 10 ( the commoner stat) as they have points in the related ability score.
The formatting and presentation for this was great. Hope you get to play it at some point for a follow up video.
In Pathfinder 2, It's actually just the Multiple Attack Penalty. What get's overlooked by those who criticise this is, that simply attacking three times (an Attack costs most of the time 1 Action, you have 3) is suboptimal in the first place. There aren't that many times you'd want to just spam attack and a lot of the martial classes can actually take feats to attack two times very effectively. (Fighters in general are so got at hitting stuff, that they can pull off three attacks)
PF2 has a lot of actions that you want to do instead of attacking, the multiple attack penalty "helps" / incentivises to do other things than standing around and bashing something.
Thanks for the shout out Trekiros! haha
Really appreciate the content and your thoughts on DC20. The Dev team thanks you for your time! 💚
Love the review. Love the Modron 😊
I loved your summary sentence at the end. That’s actually pretty spot on!
This game looks incredably solvable, which is funny alongside the "he is a standardized education math teacher" fact.
9:58 Multiple Check Penalty-
I think the reason it doesn't bother me is that coming from someone who has mostly played D&D, at lower levels we don't even have the option to attack multiple times.
And it makes sense that at those lower levels, that if you did get to attack again, it would be harder to do so.
So while the mechanic itself has the optics of being a hamper to the players, it actually feels like a positive because it's allowing for something that was mechanically not even possible before!
At least, that's why I think it doesn't really bother me.
Multiple Check Penalty will be healthy for the game and stop players from spamming 4 attacks each turn and do other things that are flavorful.
Not to mention with the new reaction system, you can take as many reactions as you want, but they deduct from the AP of your next turn. So if you're acting outside of your turn, you may not have enough AP to take multiple attacks anyhow when your actual turn comes around. I'd be more than happy to make an attack of opportunity outside of my turn (with no penalty), then when my turn comes around spend 1AP to give my attack advantage, 1AP to attack better (at no disadvantage), then 1AP to move, dodge, etc.
Good vid! I like your usual style better, but this was nice
It so cool seeing basically every DnD YTer talking about DC20 this week! Loved hearing your thoughts!
When every UA-camr is paid to shill the same thing it just makes me leery.
@@1Bearsfan Exactly; this doesn't look organic at all. This system has been in alpha for how long and only now are we really hearing about it from every mouthpiece?
@@Akalos1 100% I wonder how much each one got?
@@Akalos1 wow almost like the Beta kickstarter had just gone live and made millions and thats rather noteworthy
9:14 PF2e actually benefits from using Penalty in it's design for multiple attack penalties. PF2e wants the player to use as many different action as possible on the same turn, therefore they penalize whoever keeps on spamming the same thing. The WOW example doesn't actually work in this context as the only way to avoid the Exhausted penalty in wow was to not play the game lol.
I think you missed the point, or maybe he just didn't explain it well. The point he is making with the WOW story, is that players generally dislike mechanics that are framed as a debuff or punishment, but when that same mechanic is reframed as a buff or reward, players become a lot more receptive to it.
So when players were being punished for playing the game, they hated it, but when they were being rewarded for putting it down, they loved it.
@@theposhdinosaur7276 oh yeah i get the psychology trick. I think that it's a bad example because pathfinder wants the players to hate multiple attack penalty. It wants players to avoid it, to use other actions that don't have it. Pf2e uses the same trick but for an opposite effect. So when Trekiros gives this example he clearly uses it as a criticism. Like "never punish - always reward, while secretly punishing" but in case of multiple action penalty, it's clearly intending for players to look for other options they have, other than attacking. While the players in wow only other action was to not play the game.
DC20 has it for pretty much the same reason. There are a lot of different things you can use your action points for, so there is a penalty from using the same action multiple times. It is more beneficial to spend AP to enhance or add an effect to a spell or an attack then to just attack multiple times.
This probably also is there to help facilitate teamwork and collaboration over just attacking.
@@ChandlerBaze It's very odd to me that it's only for the same action and not attacking in general. I feel like the math will work out for 2 actions for physical attack and then 2 actions for spell.
@@Akalos1 It is different, but I understand why, because he doesn't just want to disincentive repetitive attacks, but repetitive actions in general. You don't need to be a gish if you want to attack something multiple times without penalty (or a reduced penalty) such as using an action point to take away the disadvantage on an attack or using the sword style maneuver to add a help die to an attack.
You can also make an additional attack without penalty if you are dual wielding. I like the idea of pumping everything in a single attack, but I am also a person who loves those types of characters.
Also most spells cost 2 AP (excluding cantrips) and a weapon attack costs 1 AP. You would also have a your class features to spend AP on and there are more things you can do besides just attacking.
I really like the passive being lower than the average for that skill. In D&D5e if you build for high passive perception, it discourages you from rolling. I'm playing a high-perception character who I specifically built to have high perception, but I've deliberately avoided building passive perception because of this. With Observant, my passive perception would be as high as the result of 15 on the die. That's a 25% chance of rolling higher than my passive, a 5% chance of matching it, and 70% of rolls going under it. I specifically chose not to take it because I don't want my character sheet encouraging me to argue with the DM about my passive scores. It's also kinda dumb that it's possible to be really good with a skill and still be better off not rolling that skill.
Good Video. Formatting has been one of the more common critiques I have heard so far, but I hope that will be handled in full release.
It will. They’ve been focusing more on getting the content right and then will clean up formatting.
Regarding the format: I'd prefered a 'normal' review but am not much a fan of life streams... so this edited, hybrid form is very okay for me.
D20: DnD is already very simple and low consequential... I'm under the influence D20 even more so. I don't do Kickstarter (cost to high and to much hassle outside the US), so I don't matter though.
I think the flanking being just +2 is because of advantage averaging out to be about +4/5 give or take which in this system not only means hitting easier but also more damage. And if that were the case then every fight would have a congo line of people trying to get flanking. Funny as that would be I actually would hate having to flank on every attack just to keep up with my party members' output.
It's still happening, they should just remove flanking, it just always creates conga lines and make melee characters worse
@@ДюсековИльяс If you’re running things like DnD5E, then yes. If you’re using an action system with smaller spaces (like here or PF2E), or if melee options hit significantly harder than ranged and there are different reactive strike options and you have a lot of positioning maneuvers available (again like here and PF2E), then it still has a lot of interactive value without the conga lock.
This sounds like a neat system that has a lot of potential. I like the action point system because it removes an issue I have in games like Baulder's Gate 3, namely that if something is a Bonus Action, I should logically be able to use my Action for the round to do it. Not vice-versa, for balance, but still the number of times I've been in combat in BG3 and had to effectively forfiet a character's turn because what I wanted to do with them was a Bonus Action and I'd had to use the BA for something else is too often. So the Action Point system effectively takes care of that, while not feeling as limited by the 3 AP from Pathfinder 2E.
Will definitely keep an eye on this!
Overall, I have to say you have piqued my interest in it!
I think it would have been helpful to include some sections about basics - like damage being based on how high you broke the enemies AC instead of die - which makes some comments make more sense.
Definitely keeping my eye on it! The team play and creativity non-penalty sound amazing!
Makes more sense but is poorer design harder to balance and with greater focus on the impact of hit bonus, potentially increasing the unbounded accuracy problem.
@@yurisei6732bounded accuracy is a lie.
I really love your avatar with the editor hat! 😂
Before i even watch the video. NO, it is not the new D&D, it is its own thing and we need to allow it to be its own thing and enjoy it on its own merits.
The low damage and health of DC20 has me just slightly worried about the actual spells themselves.
Having one damage for standard attacks is a neat idea, but how will this impact multi-target spells like magic missile, eldritch blast, or scorching ray (not even touching AOEs)? How will they be different from each other or regular attacks?
In this setting, a 5e spell like Magic missile would do at least 3 damage, but if it was still 1 magic point and 1 action point (like 1 level 1 slot in 5e), that would be pretty early op while martials are getting multi-attack penalties.
Can anyone who has seen the actual spell definitions describe how/whether a spell like magic missile exists in DC20, or perhaps speak to spell effect variety?
Here's how Magic Missile works in DC20 (at least in the alpha 0.7):
Magic Missile
Destruction
Cost: 2AP + 1MP
Range: 10 spaces
Duration: Instantaneous
You attempt to fire out glowing darts of magical force. Make a DC 10 Spell Check. Success: You create 2 Missiles. Success (each 5): +1 Missile. Failure: only 1 Missile. Each Missile automatically deals 1 True damage to its target. Each missile may have the same or different targets.
Mana Point Enhancements
Damage: Spend 1 MP for 1 more Missile.
Range: Spend 1 MP to increase the range to 15 Spaces.
And since Magic Missile is a pretty "weird" spell in that it doesn't really take the opponent's defenses into account, here's an AoE spell:
Burning Flames
Destruction
Cost: 2 AP + 1 MP
Range: Self (10 Spaces)
Duration: Instantaneous
A brilliant flame manifests around you. Choose a type of area: Line, Cone, or Sphere. You are the Spell’s Point of Origin.
• Line: The Spell affects every target in a 1 Space wide and 10 Space long line.
• Cone: The Spell creates a 3 Space long Cone.
• Sphere: The Spell affects every target within a 2 Space range of you.
Make a Spell Check against every target's PD within the Spell’s area. Hit: The target takes 2 Fire damage.
Mana Point Enhancements
Burning: Spend 1 MP to force all targets to Save against Burning for 1 minute.
Range: Spend 1 MP to change the origin point of the Spell to 15 Spaces (instead of Self).
Most spells work something like this. Some cantrips only cost 1 AP, but most spells cost 2 AP + 1 MP. We might see some more powerful spells later - right now the alpha only goes up to 2nd level. So you can potentially do 2 spells in one turn, but you'll be affected by the multiple check penalty and won't be able to do anything else including movement, so it might not always be the best idea.
There doesn't seem to be many spells which involve saving throws. There's still a few, like Command, which is a spell check contested by a charisma save. But for spells which deal damage, it seems most of them are spell check vs either the target's physical, or mental defense, which are basically just AC but for different damage types.
The "bonus instead of penalty" thingy relies on people not understanding how the game works (in this case not knowing that XP got halved overall).
Also, there's an opposing way to frame it: People want to use bonuses and avoid penalties. Introducing the penalty made the players not want to play after two hours, because they lowered XP disincentivized that. *That was the intended effect, but it didn't feel good, because people liked playing.* When they made it a bonus, I bet people went on to play for *at least* two hours per day, because they wanted to get all of that sweet bonus XP. *This is the opposite of the design goal, which was to not make people play for extensive amounts of time in one sitting.* So while popular, I don't think the change was a success.
Going to DC 20, a bonus would result in people wanting to attempt every check once to get the bonus, while the penalty reinforces the idea that doing the same thing over and over again leads to unhealthy gameplay. Similarly, in PF2e the multiple attack penalty incentivizes coming up with other things to do for your second and especially third action, while a bonus would incentivize doing at least two attacks to use "the whole bonus". Also, people can freely look up monster ACs (presumably unlike WoWs XP gains) and they'd call bullshit on these "impossible to hit" monsters, because the point of comparison would be the raw attack modifier without a "few attack bonus".
And either way it doesn't solve the main problem of MAP which is that it makes balanced design much harder.
@@yurisei6732 how so?
I'll wait until I see what people do in an unbiased actual play. That everyone is falling over themselves praising this system is setting off alarm bells in my head, especially after reading the rules. I am very hopeful that everyone praising this game is doing so for valid reasons, however. Once the playtest becomes available (when is that?) I will definitely have my group give it a whirl. This certainly seems the most promising of the new contenders, but again, those alarm bells.
The Alpha has been available for play for a while now and the Beta should be available as well, most likely soon after the Kickstarter campaign ends. And there have been a couple of game sessions run on the DC20 system by Dungeon Coach with several D&D youtubers that are available to watch and see as well if you haven't.
People have been playing this game since November.
Yes all this fanboying and ppl from 1 chanell coming to say its THE BEST ttrpg of recent years bothers me. If its cool we will see. I see good things and bad ones like str based wizard. I want less bullshit in my games thank you. Recent dnd games looks like meme storage. Sometimes less of a choice is having more choices imo. If you happend to actually play this please say some words here. I rather hear from sceptical.
@@Gavert3 I started playing the game in November. I liked the bones and feel of the system enough to want to stick with it and help fix the issues I think are present in the system, to the point where I was recruited for the dev team. If you think that means I now have too much bias, I understand, but there's a reason I became this passionate about it; even in a partially finished state it's become my favorite heroic fantasy ttrpg out of both editions of pathfinder, 5e, 4e, and 13th age. I'm not familiar enough with other games in the genrespace so maybe I would eventually have found another I liked more.
@@godminnette2 By all means I will look from time to time to see how DC20 is doing. I just don't want to jump into alfa/beta. Good luck to all dev team coz its not easy task. Will have 100 ppl from Poland server to convert IF DC20 will won over our hearts. But please for the love of all that is holy do not do to much overtime like all americans do. Take care m8.
To the "Wow Thing" you reference: AFAIK this concept came from Everquest.
I remember reading the patch notes in which they explained this concept.
They realized that it was always better for them to buff everything but Class #1 instead of nerfing the Class #1.
So all mobs got an hp bonus, every class but class #1 got basically the same % dmg boost and people weren't bothered in the same way as if Class #1 had gotten that very same % nerf.
They mostly managed to keep this up, I believe, but sometimes something was so broken it had to be nerfed.
Something I noticed when creating a character is that DC20s Mastery seems a bit... much. You get 5 skill points and each of those can be 2 skill or trade or language points. In the end I've found myself struggling to find things to put skill points into because of the level cap.
Correction: there are ways to get more skill points. I think I had like 8 on my character and that gave me issues
I personally hate Stunned and Paralyze as they are written in basically everything except P2E, so I integrated it as best I could with 5E and R20 here. It's a bit more complicated but as Spector said "Fun = Meaningful Decisions / Time". I reworded them to make the players have to make harder choices, not take them away:
- While stunned you only have access to 2 of the following actions:
- Full Round Action
- Movement
- Bonus Action
- Reaction
- While paralyzed you only have access to 2 of the following action, but lose your Movement:
- Full Round Action
- Bonus Action
- Reaction
- You cannot use abilities like Action Surge while Stunned or Paralyzed.
I think at the end of the day it matters little if it does some game design elements better than dnd. What matters is the support and the material, so you can easily play it in your format of choice.
Multi action penalty is what lets classes opt into builds so you can get feats that negate the penalty and that can scale for a few times , like basic attacks. Some late game class might have a 3 same action penalty fee waiver but the 4th is at disadvantage etc
@Mr_Maiq_The_Liar (comment disappeared?) That's the thing: I don't view the MAP as a problem, but a feature in pathfinder. Even at extreme examples, a team supporting a single martial can, even at level 1, stack enough buffs and debuffs to make a level 5 monster not only worry about critical hits, but make multiple attacks land at the same regularity as at least an agile weapon. Even against an extreme example of a level 5 creature with an undebuffed ac of 25 (meaning a level 1 fighter lands a hit on an unbuffed 17) it is almost always worth it to at least follow up with two more attacks, doubly so if the fighter has exacting strike. Certainly, in a world where the buffs and debuffs have not been stacked, the fighter will want to use their actions on other things, but that's, again, a feature. Now whether those attacks are "Hit it with my sword," "grapple," "trip," or the new and improved "disarm" depends on how the level 5 creature's action economy is looking at this stage of the fight. As you note, this gets even better at higher levels. As both of us have already pointed out, pathfinder promotes teamwork and action diversity. I view this as a welcome feature, otherwise everyone would be burning actions on attack like it appears what is being promoted in dc20.
Regarding DC20, I read the Alpha rules and I noticed that you can spend an additional action to make your attack hit (by conferring advantage) and then follow up with another attack of a different type (say a spell) to completely negate the penalty altogether. Moreover, as you point out, you can spend an action to make the first attack even more likely to hit and then use two actions on the second attack to disregard the penalty altogether (without even factoring in the combat maneuvers). I'd have to see it played to see what this does to the game, but it sounds like I'm going to want to "Attack, Attack." every turn. Moreover, if I understand the rules correctly, my reactions only eat up my next turn's actions, so alpha striking and then having four possible reactions seems to be the name of the game. To me, this seems problematic, but I'd have to see unbiased actual play to see how it pans out. My alarm bells are ringing, however.
I was burnout of Pathfinder2e and this looks like a great system. I will definitely check it.
This is my favorite video covering this system. Other videos are too broad for me to figure out if I want to explore the system more.
Thanks for making this video. I saw the 5 hr stream vid and was like... that looks cool but i dont have time for 5 hrs! This summary was everything i wanted out of that, cheers!
Combo spellcasting is easily the coolest rule in the game!
The filter when you do editor notes hurts my brain x_x great video though!
Love DC20. Very happy that a lot of youtubers are picking up on it! Good video!
I'd love to see a similar review done for MCDM's new rpg, when you get a chance! Your analysis towards DC20 is spot-on and very insightful, so I'd be excited to see it applied toward a number of non-DnD rpgs
I have mostly played Savage Worlds and 5e the past 10 years, so I see DC20 as a mix of those two games. I really like it.
this was a really cool summary of a stream i seem to have missed and now wish had seen. and at the same time, a detailed enough pitch for what DC20 feels like and could be played like .. I wont say no to other videos in this style
Savage Worlds also has a multiple action penalty. Some abilities can get around that penalty. It is not a problem. I think the only people with a problem with it just want to be all powerful and probably use cheat softweare on video games.
Nah it's not that. The thing that is offputting about multiple action penalty is that it forces you to engage with the system more, which not every player is comfortable doing. A lot of players like to have a simple turn cycle where they don't have to keep track of too many things, and multiple action penalty states that if you do that you will be useless. That's part of why 5e is so frightened of making martial manoeuvres a baseline thing - it needs to present the main martial options as the simple "you walk here and attack X times" loop.
Multiple action penalty also makes it way harder to balance material, which is offputting to homebrewers when not supported by homebrewing guides that give homebrewers the same knowledge the designers have.
@@yurisei6732 I had not considered it that way. Thanks
I get why is cool for players, but I feel it gives you a lot of new shiny stuff to make a character, but zero emphasis on how to design monsters or encounters. Maybe I'm thinking about it like a videogame? I believe that encounter design and PC design should go together.
There's also the fact that if monsters use the same AP system tracking 4 points for an encounter with 6 wolves will be a nightmare for DMs
Overall it sounds good on paper, but nothing here tells me it's gonna be worth learning the system to run it as a gm 🤔
1 goblin cave and dm is going to just not care about most of actions/reactions of small g00blins
Yeah that's how a lot of these post-5e systems are going. A lot of character creation flash to entice the player side (focused primarily on "flexibility" and "freedom" with things like prime attribute and build-a-bear races, rather than unique mechanics and evocative themes), but little in the way of useful structures and paradigms. DC20 doesn't even have a DM's guide book as far as I'm aware, and the monster book is listed as a kickstarter "addon". Although I don't think many of them are doing this intentionally, the consequence is a product that will sell well but rarely get played, because DMs don't buy it.
@@yurisei6732 Yeah. It's also the case that the system seems to be built entirely around combat. From all videos I've seen about it I'm yet to come across anything related to exploration and social interaction... Like if the lack of support for those things in 5e isn't critized enough.
@@XvicvicX In fairness they do say they have a few things for exploration, but since one of them is "the ability to abstract an entire dungeon run to one skill challenge", I'm not optimistic.
I should probably write up a formula for creating a post-5e system actually, it'd make it easier to criticise the bad ones. It'll start with "removing as many mutually exclusive choices from character creation as possible to appeal to the people who view these as restrictions on their ability to powergame rather than as ludonarrative resonances".
This was a great video! You have a new subscriber
Combo spellcasting upcasts the spell is a very interesting mechanics, but it also doubles your casters' combined output. How do you keep the martials feeling like they didn't brick their character by forgoing spells?
The stream was a fun deep(?) dive into the game. And consequentially this was a great format for delivering a similar experience to people with less time on their hands (for watching whole streams).
I like this format of video. More would be good. Keep up the good work.
I’m super excited for DC 20!
As a GM i really like the stacking advantage disadvantage. When I was learning 5E I was baffled why add/dis add wasn't stacking anyway.
We tried DC20 and we loved it, but we also did kind of a broken combo by mistake - a bard, a barbarian and a warlord(commander). It was extreme fun and the mechanics were fairly intuitive after using them 2-3 times, but we (and by we I mean I, the barbarian) stumbled upon a problem. There's so many little sources of damage - +1 here, +1 there, +1 under the rock, +1 on the shelf behind you, +1 in your back pocket, that I actually spent more time trying to figure out if I'm missing a +1 somewhere than I did for my whole entire turn, including decision making. And for a thing that's supposed to speed up the game by eliminating the second roll for damage, it did anything but. Although, as I said, this was an edge case, because we had a combo where two players basically sacrifice their turns and rolls to buff one player. And this might be better if not everything is done by one player.
This is an excellent illustration of DC20's unthoughtful design. The main thing that made 5e work was the drive to eliminate bonus stacking. That's the core of what bounded accuracy is. Even PF2e didn't go fully back to bonus stacking, saying that at most you're only ever going to have 2 non-static bonuses to any single roll. DC20 never thought about the way that "streamlining" the damage system was actually going to add back in a bunch of bonus stacking tedium.
@@yurisei6732 the other problem is that, at least from Version 7.0, you get a bonus to damage on level 1 and on level 2 for basically every martial class. And I dunno if other levels are going to be like that, too. And if they are, then it's gonna be a whoooole lot of +1 and +2 damage to add up.
On the thing about bonus stacking - when we were playing, I think the one saving grace is that while I had to calculate a lot of damage as a barbarian, our bard and warlord didn't, since their turns were basically to just give me a help action and then chill. And I guess that basically made it so that all 3 of our turns were rolled into just mine, as their turns were really short.
@@Notsogoodguitarguy Yeah you probably don't get a ton more table time from this, but you still have to track a bunch of tiny bonuses. And this will be a problem for the future, because as more subclasses and classes and spells and manoeuvres are added, there'll be more and more sources of these small bonuses, and they'll probably get more action-efficient meaning you're using more of them at once.
The nice thing about 5e is that because it's quite difficult to stack non-static bonuses, it's hard to add new features that creep the bonus stacking; you tend to just get alternatives rather than additives.
That's my biggest problem with it. It's designed entirely by people who have only played 5e and only designed bundles of "wouldn't it be cool if" 5e house rules. They recreated lots of ideas that were already in 3rd and 4th edition without realizing it, and are presenting them as something brand new. The endless stacking bonuses and penalties is something 5e did away with and made the game much more accessible, which is why it ended up being so popular. It's okay to deviate from that but it's not necessarily "better," it's just adding complexity for people who like complexity.
@@TheMinskyTerrorist Right - and if you *do* want a game that's a bit more about bonus stacking, PF2e is already a well-developed and popular system that has strong mechanical identity and robust balance. Why pick up an unproven third party system that chances are isn't even intended to be good?
I'm having so much fun with DC20. Truly epic system.
I'm excited for a system with combat that flows more easily.
@Trekiros At the 5 min you clarify that you are talking about a flat check for a PC doing something not covered by a skill.
If the PC is attempting to do something truly unique that cant fall under a skill or trade then the GM is having to make a call anyways and could easily adjust the DC to reflect how har that can be. I think it would be very difficult to rules codify every possible player choice without making the system to restrictive. Also it would be the same as a player using a skill they don't have mastery in too.
I kind of disagree with the concept of the prime modifier meaning that you have a meaningful choice for your attributes. Imo it flattens out the choice, in trying to make there be no wrong choice it reduces the mechanical impact of the choice. I dont think its a worse implementation than dnds, but nor do I think its better. For that matter, its a design space dnd has already dabbled in in past and current editions.
yeah, the first thing I thought about this was "Just remove the attributes entirely and tell the player that they have one +3, two +2 and three +1 and so on. So that they can spread them around whatever skills they want. And then attack can always be +3." It seems from the video that the only other place that the ability scores come up is in AC score, but then why ever not make an Agility character? What other measures are there that are determined by specific abilities and not the prime one? Maybe I don't understand something, I didn't read the book, so please take this comment with that in mind.
@@icevlad148 HP is only determined by Might, Intelligence grants you more (Or less in the case of a negative modifier) skills, Agility adds to AC like you said, and Charisma fuels a resource that allows you to give yourself advantage on saving throws (No actions required). There are more areas they effect but these are essentially the "Core" details each attribute effects.
@@icevlad148 I also haven't read the system.
I do know that a couple of updates back they added specific benefits for each attribute to help address this issue, ac became agility only, charisma gives grit (which does... something), and I can't remember the other two.
I was a bit skeptical of prime at the very beginning but it really ends up working well. You’re not locked into only considering combat when working on attributes so can focus on other reasons for choosing various attribute spreads.
much like the WOW example, if they made Prime attribute instead of "your highest ability score is your prime attribute" they changed it to "your prime score is 3 and independent of your attribute" I think people wouldn't complain about it so much. We've been use to so many class features scaling off your "proficiency bonus" and your "class level" people wouldn't question it if a different stat determined hits than might
Sure, barbarians don't have to be 'might based' to make attacks, but the barbarian class is built around tanking abilities and might determines your health.
I suppose there's more 'weight' to a decision to play barbarian if doing so confines you to a character whose highest ability score is also might, but on the other hand what class features you have is an incredibly weighty decision even without that and, due to the changes to your ability scores deriving more of your character's abilities, which ability score you make your maximum is also an incredibly weighty decision even if it doesn't lock you out of certain classes.
Two heavily weighty heavily important decisions back to back like that are probably more interesting than in your game to game gameplay than one decision that informs all major aspects of your characters mechanics, build, and playstyle. What class you play is just not a decision that is in a serious need of being made even more important to your characters identity and build
Haven't played it, but am a $65 backer.
With regards to the multiple attacks disadvantage, it feels weird and forced in an attempt to make people get creative.
Logistically speaking:
If you wave your arm: up-down, up-down, up-down, up-down it's going to require less skill or luck than moving it in up, right, down, left.. right?
Why should shooting 4 fireballs be more difficult than shooting a bow, putting it back on your back, then slashing someone with a sword, then sheathing it and then slashing someone with a greatsword, then putting it back on your back and then grappling them?
One of those sounds much easier to perform to me, so I'll just be playing without that rule.
I think it's a great rule to discourage noobs from going: Slash, slash, slash, slash every turn, and doing nothing else; but for people with slightly more experience it only limits you.
I feel like I should clarify, I love the system and what I've seen of it so far. I just don't want to be mid cool moment and get dragged back to the table upon realisation 2 of my attacks missed.
Especially a big fan of the cleaner character sheet and superior spellcasting and Agility stat. Very good changes. All in all, I have faith this'll shake up the tabletop community and my own games quite a bit.
Thanks for the coverage!
Does anyone know what app he's using for his whiteboard (the one he uses @ 7:42 )? Looks awesome. (Also, good video haha)
EDIT: Found it. It's called Excalidraw. Cool stuff.
Fantastic video! I'm here for edited videos and raw livestreams! I vote all of the above and whatevwr you like to do
Hey bud, good video. I enjoyed you dipping your toes into something new. This one is to help the algo. Cheers!
What I appreciate with this review is that you said it has rough edges. So far all I've heard is good things and it worried me. Im not saying its bad but hearing there is a downside to makes it feel more honest. I want to hear the good and the bad
The best thing to do is to read the sample yourself, and just see first hand whether what it's doing works for you.
@yurisei6732 yeah that's what I want to do.
My wife refuses to play PF2 because of the multiple attack penalty. She isn't a super strategic player so it feels like the game is mad at her for just wanting to attack the enemy and be happy only doing that
Your wife should get over herself and play a Fighter if all she wants is to hit something a lot.
I like the style of this video, but the visual effects on the edited in bits are annoying. Thanks for the introduction to this system, I hadn't heard of it before.
What if Stunned knocked the character down on the Initiative Order instead of limiting what they can do on their turn?
I do think 5e Stunned is terrible in practice, but I'm curious to know how a delay in their turn would fair instead in practice?
Definitely worse unless your initiative track is a countdown system rather than a loop system. Initiative bumping is way harder to balance because stun effects no longer translate to a specific proportion of lost turn, and harder to prevent stunlocking because there's no longer a "stunned condition" that you can say can't be had more than X stacks at once. Another significant impact of initiative bumping is that it frontloads player actions more. When stunned reduces actions, the monster still acts early but takes half a turn. It can and should use that half turn to make it harder for the players to stun it again, such as by killing them or by giving them conditions. When you're initiative bumping, the monster doesn't take any turn at all until the players run out of ways to bump initiative, which can often result in sweeps. The nice thing about having stuns reduce actions rather than delay turns is that you can always have a minimum amount of monster action no matter how much stun the players have access to.
@@yurisei6732 Thank you for this! I was very curious as to why this wasnt more common and I think your explanation makes a good argument as to why it isnt a more common thing... Follow up though, can you briefly explain how a countdown initiative system would work? This is the first time I've heard of such a thing.
@@lordjalor Sure. For some examples of this, see Shadowrun 5 and Feng Shui 2. Basically, when you roll initiative, then instead of your result being where you get placed in a turn order, your result is like a number of points you can spend in a round to take actions. Once everyone has got an initiative score, the player with the highest initiative chooses an action to take, then loses an amount of initiative based on the action taken. This reduces their initiative. Then, you see who has the highest initiative now, and that player takes a turn. This keeps going like this until every combatant has 0 initiative left, after which initiative is rolled again.
In Shadowrun, you always lose 10 initiative after taking an action, and your initiative score is determined by rolling some number of d6s and adding a flat modifier. A character not specifically spec'd for combat will usually have initiatives between 1d6+4 and 2d6+8. If you fully invest in combat, you might have something like 5d6+10. This means a combat-spec'd character will both act earlier and take more actions. They might even take multiple actions in a row, against only slow enemies: If your initiative result is 30, and everyone else has 19 or lower, then after your first turn, you then have 20, and you're still the highest in initiative.
It's an interesting way to do initiative, one I personally think is better suited to low combat games that want to make "specing for combat" a real thing and not a default. I don't think I'd use it in a game like D&D where everyone's supposed to be a good fighter.
I just want this to push game design forward. I'll never play it because I don't think the core principles are very good, but I'm glad people are trying to make good general systems instead of cripplingly overspecializing
Trying to make general systems is why they keep sucking. System specialisation is the only way to get a TTRPG that properly supports the campaign being run.
@@yurisei6732Tell me you're a bad GM without telling me you're a bad GM
Can we get the audio fixed? Most of this video is so quiet I have to raise everything to max and still can barely hear it but when you speak as editor its so loud I have to turn it back down. Even the whoosh sfx is louder than the majority of the talking.
I'm intrigued by DC 20, but I don't want to get invested in a game with a character build arms race, as has been the case with D&D for almost a quarter century now.
I think he might have changed stunned. I watched a stream of his and someone was stunned and I don’t think it worked that way.
Overall it sounds a lot like "PF2e at home" to me. As if someone was trying to get people to play Pathfinder by making it look more like DnD5e. That's not to say the game is bad, of course, I just don't think I'd ever play it over PF2e.
Also, while that "teamwork casting" makes for cool scenes, doesn't it just incentivize building a party where every character is the same?
DC20 does a lot of things to incentivise building a party where every character is the same. This is the downside of these "hyper-flexible" character creators, it starts to remove the trade-offs and just lets you take all the best things.
The audio quality is kinda distracting.
Gogo DC20 💜
Being good at math, and using that math to balance the game, makes a huge difference when working on the game. Most games are written by people that are, or want to be, writers. They try to ignore the math.
Really nice ❤
Doesn't look like it. DC20 is doing the same sorts of things that a lot of post-OGL systems are doing, where it tries to cater to too many audiences. Just take the "Prime Attribute" thing. This is a perfect representation of the problem - some audiences today feel that roleplay and mechanics matching each other is *actively undesirable*, so DC20, frightened to alienate them, adds Prime Attribute, a system that means a Strength 6, Dex 6, Int 16 character is equally good at swinging a sword as a Strength 16 Dex 16 character. And as if that's not bad enough, there's even the Prime Prime Attribute variant rule that says your prime attribute is just the maximum possible value, meaning the Str 6 Dex 6 Int 6 character is also equally good at swinging a sword. It's absurd. It's attempting to solve a problem via streamlining instead of diversification. Yes, it would be cool if you could play an intelligent fighter and not feel like you were missing out. The way that a system should approach that is by giving Intelligence a different value for Fighters, not just making "being smart" magically cause you to be physically stronger. it's also ridiculous that a Strength 16 character with 0s in every other stat is equally as perceptive as the wisest humans. Once you're using prime attribute to avoid all the meaningful consequences of having attributes, just remove the attribute system entirely.
And doing this doesn't make choices more valid, it makes choices arbitrary. In a character creation game, what makes the ability to make choices fun is synergy. But having synergistic choices necessarily requires having unsynergistic choices. Prime Attribute is an idea designed to eliminate unsynergistic choices, but in doing so it also removes synergistic choice and makes the ability to choose not matter. The goal when increasing the level of choice in a character creation system should be to increase the number of synergistic options, specifically via broadening the kinds of synergy available, not to reduce the number of ways you can make a bad choice.
@@yurisei6732 wow that was a great explanation. I didn’t really fully examínate the consequences of the prime attribute system. The first time I read about it I had my concerns, mainly with the role-play aspect of it. How does a “strong” wizard necessarily mean he is better at spell casting? Some things make more sense than others like an intelligent fighter who is not as strong but knows where to strike. But like you said, it becomes arbitrary to have any attributes in the first place, and, while it satisfies everyone, it does nothing special.
I’ve been looking into DC20 and Nimble as alternative systems to run with my next campaign. So far, I like many features from both, but Nimble so far has been more appealing.
Thank you so much for putting into words why I instinctually knew I could never enjoy a game that used this kind of Prime Attribute system.
The attributes stop meaning anything and so there's no mechanical satisfaction to having a high-Int Barbarian, just a feeling of "wow I wouldn't expect that".
Wrong, a 16 Str Wizard is not as good at swinging a sword as a 16 Str Fighter because attributes aren’t the only thing that matter in DC20.
@@brilobox2 Did you notice how you just made the assumption that I was imagining the 16 Int character as a Wizard and the 16 Str character as a Fighter? I never mentioned classes. That 16 Int character is actually also a Fighter; and it makes no sense that he would be exactly as good at wielding a sword as the guy who is twice as strong and twice as agile.
The more every UA-camr and their uncle tries to shove this down my throat the more I'm sure I will hate it.
How terrible for you, videos you don’t have to watch.
DC20! 💜
Pretty much everything that people seem to think are "great" changes in relation to DnD are what I dislike about this game. I like 6 Attributes, and I think its silly that all Attributes are going to give you the exact same type of befenits, ala Prime Mod. There is literally no choice. I like the "Score" AND Mod better than just one number. If I understand the HP in DC20, that seems tiny, and not rolling damage is NOT a time saver.
Some of these changes when applied to say a LARP might make sense, for a host of reasons, but dont make sense in a TT game. As for the AP system, I have the SAME compliant as I did when Pathfinder is touted about these similar mechanic. They SAY you have three/four actions to do what you want including attacking and THEN penalize you when what you want to do is attack multiple times. Why? If an attack costs 1 pt/action and you tell me I can spend them as I want, why would attacking more get me more penalties when do OTHER actions dont....in Pathfinder they say you have three ACTIONS but then set the cost to most spells to cost 2? Dumb....I assume the same for DX20, though to be fair calling them action points semantically does seem better as a manner of logic.
Basically, this just continues the trend of taking a simplified game, making it more so, then adding silly changes and restrictions and tossing out some of the core things people enjoy, ie roll dice in a TT game, for the false idea it will save time.
There might be elements that are salvageable but this has less flexibility, and makes characters just bland copies of each other. First impression on the classes was meh, and side not, I think his take on the Paladin and why he didnt include it is BS (ya its a personal opinion there.)
Overall, I dont think this solves the actual weaknesses of the 5e system, with two exceptions: Adding Exh when you got to 0 and brought back up, and stacking of Adv and Disavd. Those two changes are good but easily enough to just implement in 5e. The other changes just seem to make the game more bland...perhaps wanting to be more a narrative than a game, but hey if it appeals to some, great. But for me, not worth the switch.
Well about pf, the penalty exist to make martials more unique from spellcasters. Cause spellcasters actually can only cast a spell, then move or something. But a martial character with all those extra feats, can just take the feats to remove the debuffs amd make them actually more rational to attack three times. It's just that, without looking at feats, yeah it sucks balls
@@ДюсековИльяс 1. That is a terrible design. 2. Its unnecessary. 3. Its not obvious to the players. 4. Its a bait and switch on the whole concept.
Like I said, I think DC20 calling it action POINTS allows for someone to understand that some things cost more than others and makes sense that spells might need more action points to be spent. Hence little to no multiple spells per turn, though even that I think is silly. But throwing in the penalty for martials or even just wanting to attack multiple times as a caster is dumb. Definitely the thing I see as the most dishonest pt when talking about these systems...people keep saying its so great, but they ignore the obvious.
I think 5e is better, cleaner, more undertstandable, and honest. IF the AP or 3 Action system were in fact what they claimed I would think they were better.
Also, this isnt the way to differentiate casters and martials or close the gap in power.
For starters, casters get new spell slots every level and new spell levels every other level. As such, there should not be a single DEAD level for any maritial and they may in fact need a couple features per level. Some can be ribbon features, but at least one good feature per level either from class or subclass. Second, they need to STOP being so stingy with whatever resouces they may use, whether it be manuever die, Psi points, Ki, etc. Third, DONT nerf the casters or their spells. that is the WRONG approach.
@@shadowmancer99 ah, I see the problem here. People who watch this channel are either incapable of comprehending that 5e is majorly mechanically flawed and you can often break it by accident, or are invested in hating 5e and only playing PF2 to spite it.
@@brilobox2 Its not mechanically superior to have everything be essentially homogenous. There not being a significant difference in the stats, in what they bring to the character just makes it entirely boring. 5e is NOT a complicated game, its pretty basic compared to any of the other versions minus the boxed sets that came out and which I started. My hope was that One Dnd would have addressed this by making a more advanced set, improve options, and put the terror back in the monsters. Instead, not only is the One DnD version mechanically weaker/MORE homogenous than 2014, but the monsters dont appear from the examples to have been improved in the least not to mention they further leaned in the fuzzification of the game.....I mean really...how does a wheelchair in a DUNGEON make any sense? Or what is so epic adventure about dwarves baking? Not all the art is terrible, but there are some terrible art.
That isnt to say that there are NO improvements in 2024 but its pretty much in the wrong direction. Which if we circle back to DC20, I actually think he had ONE really good idea in condensing the features of 1-20 to 1-10 and adding 11-20 more stuff...but then undid that great choice with just making everything else so generic.
The problem with both 2024 and DC20 is that there ARENT consequential choices....no matter what you choose it all leads to the same basic result and that is boring...in putting "balance" as the goal, nothing can actually stand out. Which is too bad. Well that and the fact that 2024 still did martials dirty.
I don't like that mechanic. I don't think it fixes the healing issue, if anything I feel that if someone is in the minus hit points I would just tell them it's cheaper and faster to roll a new character. There is only one solution, buffing PC hit points. DM's hate powerful healing, players will not heal players negative points of with hit points. 0 is their best option and DM's also hate that. The only solution is for players to be harder to take down, so players don't need to rely on healing and healing isn't buff so enemies can't last longer. And because we are not buffing the damage, DM's won't get cheated.
I have to call it on, this is just absord. The whole controversy about the healing and yo-yo is at best childish. Therei s only one solution to this and someone gets hurt. I know I sound rude, but it's clear as the day. As a DM myself, I don't feel threaten by any of these. It's just, just dumb.
Ugh, that pause effect hurts my eyes 😑
So if anyone wants players for this on roll20 give a shout lol
My big problem with this game is the cost. $40 for a digital copy of the core rules of a poorly formatted beta seems extortionate. $95 if you want the full rules and a few short adventures.
I felt the same when DC was charging people who volunteered to playtest for access to the Alpha rules. Those people are now paying again and will pay a third time when the game is released.
that is why I will just wait for the rules to go public when it is finished, similar to the PF2e website
@@Chris3s Understandable, If you have time I highly encourage checking out the Alpha that completely free now. If you like what you see you're not out any money, but at least now know if its something you want to follow for the future.
as someone who is pationate about pf2 and doesn't really like 5e i can see more of the side for 5e on this and as such i'll read it but it's not something i feel a desire to buy
🙂👍🏻
Prime attribute is a bad idea. Said it before in another video. It makes all character roll the same always and removes the narrative and the logic from the game while at the same time removing the purpose of all other attributes. Other than modify stats, attributes do nothing. You dont USE them. They're just there. Illogically describing a character.
I suggest reading the attributes descriptions.
Might gives you Rest points for healing during Rests
Agility gives you the distance you can jump
Charisma gives you Grit Points (Helps with Saves/ reduce damage in combat)
INT gives you skill points (that having at least 1 mastery in the skill allows you to help another PC in a check)
What the previous commenter said. Read the system. The prime isn't applied to absolutely everything. Skills use a variety of attributes.attributes contribute to other things than combat capabilities.
I get why you are saying this though, and it makes sense, but he has put effort into other uses for the attributes.
They’re important for saves, for skills, for trades, and for certain key secondary features. Attributes still mean something, but you don’t have to focus solely on attacks.
Prime affects attack rolls, spell checks and awareness. If all you do is striking and casting, then yes. You roll prime all day in combat. That's a way you can play.
However, that doesn't mean different stats don't matter. If you want to grapple you want might. If you want to identify enemies and their weaknesses for your party to exploit, you want intelligence. If you want to sneak past enemy lines to take out priority targets, agility fuels stealth. Those are 3 different fighters that go beyond I swing my sword hard, smart or fast.
You can start out a character with stat arrays all the way from 3/1/0/0 to 3/3/0/-2 with just the default options. But there's a catch, you can't increase a stat to 4 until level 5. So the attribute points you get in the meantime always diversify your character. So you can either be 2 of the above mentioned fighters at the same time, or you can build a more balanced fighter that levels out it's weaknesses, but still is amazing at one thing.
But it gets better. Do you want to multi class your fighter into a Gish with a wizard talent? Prime is your highest score, and since you can have both max might and max intelligence, you are totally free to make your character swing a sword with might and cast spells with intelligence.
Some of the designs and solutions take some getting used to, but there's a lot of creative freedom for you to express and play your characters.
@GutisFive I read them. I know the rule. My point is that attributes are the character, not it's stats. Stats apply whe things happen to the character, not when the character acts. This puts the focus of attributes outside of the character. Poor design, of you ask me, since this means the character is a function on the system, not a being within a world
Let me explain my issue with the Penalty in both Pathfinder and DC20. They tell you have X actions and you CAN do the same thing multiple times if you want. Then they hit you with a penalty if you want to simply attack X times cause they want to force you to play in their style. Hate this.
Compare that to say Old Vampire (WoD). You have a Dice Pool. NORMALLY you would only attack once cause you would get your full Dice Pool, BUT if you want to, you can SPLIT your Dice POOL and attack as many times as you can split the pool. This leaves the decision to the player and the penalty is of splittng your attention is universal to any additional actions you might take that round. THIS makes sense, and is potentially offset if you know a particular power, Celerity or Temporis. If you tell someone they have X actions they should be free to take them however the PLAYER decides, NOT how the game developers want you to play.
Like, subscribed, and supporting my local ttrpg fam!! 🩵🩷🤍