My favourite Gygax quote is “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules”, it's as true today as it was when he said it and when they all created this wonderful game. As always loving your vids Sir.
That's an reduction ad absurdum. I understand the sentiment, and agree that you are free to alter rules as you see fit... a "game" without rules isn't actually a game.
I was able to greatly speed up combat through the use of shock collars that go off if a turn takes more the 10 seconds. Granted, players stopped showing up, but it's a work in progress.
I have always suspected bonus actions were invented because everyone always wants to attack in D&D. Players would see they clearly needed to take a different action, but would hesitate or feel bad about not attacking. Bonus actions could solve that, but only with a hard design rule that no bonus action can cause damage. 5E immediately let bonus actions be extra attacks, so it never worked and just made combat slower and more complicated.
I think BA was meant as a limiter for how many special things you could do on your turn (A: 1). But the ruleset added too many things that used this resource, so now your abilities collide with each other and, at best, it becomes a puzzle you have to solve in order to take your turn. At worst it creates pressure to weaponize it, and then to optimize it. “Concentration” does this too IMO, but my table houseruled no-limit concentration, so we avoid that problem.
@@jasonp9508 I like the 3.X concept of concentration being the ability to keep the spell up after being damaged, so I do that sort of thing. Having multiple spells up makes it even more likely to lose a random currently up spell at my table.
I always assumed that you could only concentrate on one concentration spell at a time. Casting another spell would surely be too difficult in many cases. Although I can imagine a few exception situations. I agree that concentration can be (likely) broken when damage is received. But I bet it would be hard to concentrate when subjected to melee attack unless you are supremely confident that your protections are Good enough that dodging or blocking blows are not an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main attacks you do as a bonus action in 5e are the War Cleric's very limited number of extra attacks, offhand attacks for dual wielders, the Berserker's Frenzy attacks, and Spirit Weapon. I personally have no problem with bonus attacks, but I do agree that they should be small things you do in addition to the main part of your turn as opposed to something that you should always be doing on your turn.
As an oldtime D&D players (since 1977), we believed from the start that the GM can add or remove any rules that don't fit his or her campaign. If your game works for you and your players, you're doing it right.
So true. Same for me since '78, when I started GM'ing. "When should you change the rules?" "Whenever the hell you want." Just be consistent, make sure it makes sense is is fairly applied for the "other side" (monsters, opponents, etc.), and play away!
I have played since 1985, and it have always been the GM that decides how hi/she want to roll the campain and we have always had our own house rules. Is it a new thing to not have house rules?
Something that I used to teach RPGs is poker chips. Three simple colours for the common 3 actions across many games. Players turned them in when used and got them back at the start of turn. I found it helped with them understanding their turns, and they played faster. The clink they made hitting the bowl also added nicely to the action.
The term "bonus action" is really terrible, because it sounds like you're getting an extra action, but you're really not. It's really just a new way to spend an action type you already have. I think if they called it anything else, like 3E's swift action or 4E's minor action, it would be a lot more understandable.
@@SkittleBombs Not familiar with those. I mostly use it to teach the action systems of games. DnD, Dark Heresy, FFGs Star Wars, and a few others. It is suprising how many systens have 3 or 4 action systems.
when those words are written the youtube systems can down prioritize the video because its obviously stated that its not content and people are not actually watching
I find it remarkable that this needs to be said. We are the players and we are the GMs, so no one can force us to do it by the book. People who try to 'win' the game by making a powerful character, and never dying are completely missing the point of the hobby.
@@whitleypedia I have met several people who have a hard time thinking outside the box, and who prefer lots of crunch in order to feel validated by their in game choices.
I'm glad others feel my pain. It would be easier if I knew what actions and bonus actions you could take. Or what class you're playing... Don't get me started on hidden backgrounds/description on DDB. Top right of a printed sheet, hidden on DDB
@@Billchu13 honestly, even if you knwo their sheets, you still have to ask, because they still might have movement left And in general, it is very amusing zo me, how hard you can tell that bonus actions were not playtested
Precisely. All pre-written content (especially official content) is designed as a general use or one size fits all style. The "rules" are less of a governing system and more of a tool-kit - and several of these "tools" just won't suit your purposes. Adventures are not written with your table or your players' choices in mind - you HAVE TO alter the contents according to how the story plays out at your table, or according to what's cannon in YOUR setting. Monster and NPC stat-blocks are written like a base model car -they suit a general purpose, but unless you customize them, they are going to be boring, not particularly challenging, or (often enough) both. Great topic Professor. Hope you're feeling better soon. Thanks for another awesome video.
No, there are in fact systems that just work perfectly out of the box with zero house rules, while being more flexible than D&D in all possible scenarios.
"I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a variant, and there is no official interpretation from me or anyone else. If a game of ‘Dungeons and Beavers’ suits a group, all I say is more power to them, for every fine referee runs his own variant of D&D anyway." Gary Gygax, co-creator of D&D Alarums & Excursions #2 July 1975
Excellent video! In Army terms- D&D rules are a guideline not a regulation. When you have enough homebrew rules, new opinions, or in depth monster/ magic philosophies, now it’s time to publish a new edition!
Both Mike and Jeremy in official interviews early on said that if they were to do it again, they wouldn't include bonus actions and would have implemented that sub-system different as part of the triggering action options.
3:25 This is also WHY the games are steering more towards mechanics; books for the GM sell to GMs. Books for player options sell to everyone else, and players outnumber GMs by a huge margin.
As someone with around ten years of experience in gaming retail, this is an idea that sounds great in a corporate meeting, In reality, GMs buy all the books and the players use the GMs books. Or the GM buys all the PDFs and sends them to the players. Granted, players that never GM might buy the core Player's Handbook, but WotC is kidding themselves about players buying a whole shelf player option books.
@@neverforged D&D 2e had a lot of extra rules, particularly with the Fighters/Bards/Priests Handbook etc. Yet it was taken that these were completely optional. Now it feels like it's an expectation. A "real" player supposedly needs to purchase all sanctioned modern-audience products. It's a corporately driven purity test to ensure playing is no longer a part of a game but of a lifestyle. It's a practice and mentally that's embraced by social media "influencers" and appears largely detested by people who actually play the games.
@@kaijuultimax9407been thinking it for a while And that's the reason why rules-lite, more open systems sounds more appealing nowadays to me (also, minmaxing is strategy games, and even then it bores me if it takes too long to optimize) The combat round example was great
I'm pretty sure this has largely been Merles' position on the bonus action since shortly after the 2014 launch. I remember hearing that this was his opinion a LONG time ago.
I was about to say this same thing. I recall Mearls regretting Bonus actions years ago. It was probably in an interview, and said less directly. I want to say it was in a discussion that also included the Paladin being his favorite class mechanically and trying to get the others to operate more like it. And this might be someone else, at a similar ti.e, but I swear he thought that the druid shouldn't be a caster, or less of a caster, and focus on shapechanging and other magical abilities. He has/had a lot of ideas for a 5e 2.0.
He must have known back then, as soon as the game released and people started playing it. The feature was never playtested and it shows. "I wanna cast fireball and then misty step away. One is action, the other bonus action" is one of the most common and most frustrating things you have to explain to a new player because RAW say so. Even now, some 10+ years later.
@@marianpetera8436 The feature WAS playtested, in multiple fashions, during the D&D Next playtest. Minor actions, swift actions, different types of reaction, extra actions(different from extra attacks), etc. Pretty much all of this was shot down on the playtest forums over the course of *two years.* WotC chose to drop 5e with the "bonus action" system in a fashion worse than anything playtested, and it ballooned up to epic proportions by 2017 or so.
Get well soon. i run ShadowDark with 7 players....and now get them all to move simultaneously and then take their actions going round the table. They play much better as a team together. And the fights feel better because of this.
My wife and I use to run a D&D night at the local bookstore where we would routinely get between 20-30 regular players showing up weekly. This was 3.0. My rule was you needed to be ready to go when it was your turn, or you get skipped (and you had to buy at least one thing from the store). I would lay out the scenario, call for initiative, ask the highest roller to start, and go in order until everyone at the table got a chance to do their action or get skipped. Then I would work through their actions cinematically. We generally got through one major combat, one major change in location, and one major plot point in the story each session, with rewards including leveling at the end. I would start each session with the players recapping what they did last session, and have scheduled breaks. Had players ages 8-62. Good times.
I get the point. Old School DND is you go and attack or you cast a spell. Now bonus actions are allowing you to attack again, drink a potion and attack, cast a healing spell and attack. Cast a damage enhancing spell and attack etc. There can be a decision paralysis that forms when you have 6 players that all have a move, action, and bonus action to take when in olden days they just would have moved and swung their sword. However, I love that bonus actions are minor-like mechanics that add flavor to a class - The Rogue gets to hide or sneak as a bonus action (or gaurantee they can sneak attack their target), The Fighter gets a little bit of healing with second wind, the Cleric can cast a heal spell, Monks can punch-punch, Rangers cast hunter's mark, Barbarians go into Rage mode. I think the bigger issue has become "what's a bonus action versus an action" as some things have been changed with the 5.5 rules to be bonus actions (like the Paladin's lay on Hands) in order to make it easier to go "OKay I attack as an action, and bonus action lay of hands myself" when it became a dramatic and tough decision "Do I heal cause I'm almost dead or attack to try and kill the target?" I personally prefer the flavor of the bonus action.
Any even cursory study of "Old School D&D" indicates there were far more decisions to be made back then because nearly every PC also was shepherding around a henchman and a couple of hirelings. Gary's own stories from his original campaigns describe 12 to 14 total characters (being played by roughly six people) were traipsing about dungeons like a small army. Which absolutely tracks since the game was based on wargaming. Take a look at the numbers of characters each old school module assumed. The modules also assumed a balance of classes (to the extreme that the modules' authors often cited the need for a specific combo of classes and the gross number of bodies expected to be able to finish the module).
Same. The bonus action is the cool "here's something else that *I* can do." It's when a lot of characters get to shine. In a recent campaign I was pretty bored in combat while playing my Paladin, and that's when he should shine. It was "OK, I attack. All right, done." He had a few spells and other abilities to use in combat, but I had the shortest turns of anyone at the table. In the meantime the Rogue was darting in and out of melee, the Moon Druid was turning into animals and elementals, and the Bard was attacking and healing or giving inspiration.
Agreed. The move attack, move attack gets old. Still Professor DM is correct that combat does tend to drag a bit. This is partly where I think the 3 action economy of Pathfinder is interesting. Still for the record I have not played Pathfinder, so more an intellectual liking vs experience. Part of the problem right now is that many people (like myself) have had to find online games. So, there is logical pressure for DMs to play close to RAW with only a few home rules when one is scouting the world wide web for players. Those lucky to play with the same people consistently, does open the door for more homebrewed or modified rules.
I currently DM a table for 8 players, all complete newbies or close to it. We play 5e 2014 rules (phb and dmg only) I personally very much like the bonus actions. A bonus action is something that sets your character apart, because it's directly tied to your class or (in rare cases) a special piece of equipment. If your character has no bonus actions to take, they can't do anything as a bonus action - that's why for instance drinking a potion should never be a bonus action, because it's something everyone can do. Everything else on the player's turn is either an action or a free part of your movement at the DM's discretion - there, done. If you can't manage that and still don't get players to finish their turn in about 30 seconds, once players have gotten used to the game by session 2 or 3, I don't think the problem is the rules. For my party, I always has written on a whiteboard what their turn consists of and what they can do outside their turn. A player's turn consists at most of 3 things: action (or ready action), movement and a bonus action, if they have one. If that's unmanageable to you, I don't know what to tell you. Getting rid of bonus actions completely stifles classes like rogue and monk, because part of their deal in the early levels are, that they can do mundane stuff as bonus actions.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! I know how ya feel, Professor. There are so many "plagues" going around this season, I almost feel lucky I only caught one of them!
I started d&d with the earliest box set. There were 3 playable characters. Then on to the first hard back books. And played many years on them, many different dungeon masters...I learned the newer rules playing the second never winter nights ( I did play the AOL version for several months) and the rule changes were fun. Sadly since then I never got (or took) the chance to play at a table again. Perhaps some day. I have kept up with many content providers and your one of the most enjoyable and knowledgeable. I found critical role and started watching near the end of campaign one...and it felt so much like the early days of friends around a table and I was hooked. Back to the topic 🤪 There is so much going on with 5.0 and 😡 the newest rules 🤬... I have to agree it's to many things one character can do in a single round. And it slows down combat. Thank you for your continued videos even when sick...got to feed that TH-cam monster or it will bite off your hand like a foolish thief trying to unlock a mimic ☠️
I tend to love your advice, especially about not getting too caught up in the mechanics and worrying about every tiny little bonus or rule interaction. However, telling my friend “it’s only a 5% difference it won’t change the game” is not a compelling argument to someone currently getting their masters in statistics, lol. Sometimes it’s hard to make quick calls and keep the game moving with players who LOVE mechanics-centered play. On another note, I’m really interested in the Zewihander initiative, thanks for mentioning it! Definitely going to bring it up next time I run a game.
The fact that it usually takes 10 minutes before it's my turn again is the #1 reason that I don't like being a player and prefer to GM. Being a player is too boring. That is also why when I am a player, and we're playing online, I'm usually working on the other monitor.
Take it from the old school of rolling combat. Combat starts, both sides deliberate together & declare actions. One initiative roll for each side. Can use a 60/90/120 sec timer to keep rounds short. Goes insanely faster and helps build camaraderie among the party, talking to each other, instead of being on their phone or on the other monitor.
Skill issue. Both on other people taking their turns too slow and the DM failing to make engaging combat. Also people tuning out when it's not their turn instead of thinking about it as the situation develops. Also not letting players remain engaged by communicating out of character outside their turn. I've ran encounters with 6 PCs, followers, and upward of 20 enemies, and it didnt take that long to finish a round. (or when it does it barely counts for this because each player ran 2 characters plus possibly a follower)
Great video Professor, loved it and agreed with every word! The only comment I have is that currently taking out bonus action out of 5e (or 5.5 or 5e2024 or whatever) is too difficult as there are far too many character abilities and spells that rely on the presence of bonus action. Just another reason not to play 5e anymore I guess! (actually, ran my first Dragonbane game today for my high school students, 5e veterans all, they loved it and it went so much faster despite it being their first session playing that game with zero rule explanation)
The "everybody rolls at once" thing is something I've been thinking about to speed up the game of Lancer that I want to run. It's a role-playing system about piloting mechs and the attacks often have many steps and dependent effects, so taking a page out of the old war games and doing all the movement and movement-related rolls and then everybody rolling their attacks at once feels like it should be the way to play. At the same time, when characters aren't in their mechs the game goes rules-lite and character's "trigger" rolls are basically a single roll for things that would be whole D&D encounters. I'm a big fan of Gundam Wing and Armored Trooper VOTOMS, so I really appreciate characters having *broad* ability.
This was the best DM advice video this channel has yet made! I love all Dungeon Craft videos Everytime I brainstorm ideas for how I might run a 5e game and what optional rules I would use, I get bombarded on all sides by comments saying I should use this or that other game or how I am ruining 5e. It serves to keep me in my OSR space, where hacking is traditional and accepted.I will just adapt the 5e ideas I like into my BX game.
Excellent advice. We all wind up making our own dnd at the table, but many who start out dming have the sense that they need to wait for permission to make changes.
I was gonna comment on Patreon and thought I'd save it for TH-cam and the algorithm: I like Bonus Actions! But I agree that they function best at a table of 3 or less players, and even better when all players are familiar with the turn structure and their character abilities. My own homebrew d20 game uses bonus actions to good effect, but I run for 3 players who've all been playing the same characters for 5 years.
I have had the same opinion on bonus actions for some time. A few years back I was introducing some new players to the game and on discussing the action economy, I made it clear that BA were not a mandatory action each turn. However, each turn became a slog as the players wanted to maximize their turn and would struggle on how to spend that BA. Often looking to invent new ways use the mechanic. Some with flavor (which is cool) , but most were looking to exploit some additional mechanical advantage. I just remember my players saying."Ok with my action I do this.. and with my BA I will (insert a litany of options they wanted my ruling on). It was then that I realized that the 5e action economy was only a *slight* improvement on 3/3.5e and a push on 4e (both were bad). Additionally, as those players became for proficient with the game, they were looking to maximize class synergies. It is the BA that allows for a significant number of these crazy multi-class game-breaking synergies.
It seems like the ways rules are now structured encourage PC optimization, is if it's a response to a things being built in a way that actually hamper rather than enable players. Bonuses stacked on perks stacked on equipment and traits work out great in video games like Diablo 3, where it all ends up in real-time at ridiculous difficulties. But at a table, these builds are like trying to undo limitations that didn't need to be imposed in the first place. While too simple can be boring, too bogged down with extra rules becomes a frustrating slog that makes players just want to do something else.
@@crimzongaming5470 I don't think simple alone is boring. It depends on the style of campaign. I like simple rules in a narrative focused campaign were story and role play are the focus, and not tactical combat. I personally prefer a well crafted tactical combat system in a narrative game. But simple can be a nice break. What is boring is running and playing either game when the characters are superheroes, who face no real threat or chance of failure. This is what 5e has become. The best games are those with actual stakes. The most memorable moments are usually those where either the party made it through by the skin of their teeth through a little luck or with a truly clever strategy. Or those where the party actually lost a character. That doesn't often happen with maxed out cheese/meta builds involving broken combos.
Great video! Players need a PhD to figure out the action economy. Bonus actions do bog the game down. There’s move, action, at-will, reaction, bonus actions..
Great gm advice! I kinda feel the same about bonus actions in 5e often. Thanks for all your hard work and putting hours in like I used to as a chef. Get some rest and get better soon. I’m looking forward to the tower crafting video!
You are like the U.S. Mail motto: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Yeah, it's a shame budget cuts isn't one of the enumerated things that wont stay them from doing their jobs. Oh, that could be misinterpreted... Budgets cuts for the postal service are dumb, not the workers for not being able to make up for it.
I love the dice rolling at the same time! Excellent. :) BTW, I would love to see a video on the unspoken rules that always happen at a table. For example, I remember one time I made a "fun" character. A fremlin. A flying goblin type creature way back in 2nd ed. I knew that the character would be there for roleplaying and fun. But I also remember one time, fighting a fire giant, a creature I really couldn't do much in combat to. I cast an illusion on the Fire Giant to make it look like his body was covered in rot grubs. The fire giant could have disbelieved and easily made a saving throw. The giant wasn't a dummy. But the DM threw me a bone. The giant wasted an action brushing off the illusions and then snapped out of it. So, the DM threw me a bone when he didn't have to. In exchange, I didn't try to finagle more goodwill out of the DM. I didn't keep trying to make new illusions of things, because I didn't want to try his patience. I think this dance of rules / bending the rules is an interesting one. I would love to hear the good Professor's take on it.
An understated aspect of GMing is remembering that enemies do LEARN unless they're totally mindless. If I was GMing, for the second illusion attempt the giant would have advantage on the save.
4:14 I knew there was a reason I like this guy... Oh, sometimes the Professor's opinion is....his opinion and not, oh, say, mine, but that said, what the good Professor is saying about his 3 key permeances spot on (my opinion, of course). You can Google Gary Gygax and see his own words stating as much. The rules work however you and your table need them to work, thus, no two tables are the same. Been my experience since the 70's.
Been playing a video game recently (Tactics Ogre)....the initiative system is called Reaction Time...every action you do add RT and on your turn, you do a move action (it add 3 RT per square you move, up to a certain maximum, also dependant on race, special equipment). Now, you can do an attack (or cast a spell) that adds a certain RT. You could also use optionally some skill that adds RT on top of that. After acting, the unit is then queued based on the RT "used". Also units have a base RT based on equipment, race, and whatnot. So, a fast unit (fairy, no equipment) could potentially act twice before the heavy knight. Pretty sure that would be easy to implement on the game table (didn't try yet). It won't help to get a faster pace but it's appealing strategy-wise. You can for example move less than your max and skip an action this turn to try to act sooner. Obviously there is no more "rounds", some math involved (players got to know the RT they use).
First of all: Get better soon! Love your well thought out opinions, especially because you never say something like "it is bad, period", more like "this works if you ..., BUT ...". At the end, it is a game and the purpose of the game is that everyone involved (yes, also the DM!) has fun. Though I think, the more options a game provides, the better. It's easier to ditch option that you think will bloat your game than to invent new stuff. I have a DM that sticks to Pathfinder 1e because he thinks that 5e is not granular enough in terms of options :D PS: I'm German native speaker and I always cringe when you butcher "Zweihänder" :D
In my experience bonus actions didn't significantly slow down play. I think they're being unfairly scapegoated for a deeper problem with how the classes are designed. In the past, martial classes had quick and easy turns, and it was only the Wizard's players who took 10 minutes to pick a spell and figure out how it worked. But now, every class has a similarly over long list of special powers and/or spells, so they all take as long as the Wizard used to, while the Wizard/Sorceror has also grown more complex and thus takes even longer.
On the hardcore mode; I had an idea to make the game easier/harder by adjusting the rolls for stats. To make it easier you can either roll Five Dice (Keep three highest) *OR* have one preset to six and roll three dice (Keep the six plus two highest). To make it harder reduce the dice to *just* three die *OR* have one preset to two or three and roll three dice (Keep the six plus two highest).
Being mentioned by Professor DM alongside Mike Mearls just made my day. Thanks again for sharing my D&D house rule, Dan. Wishing you a speedy recovery!
Professor is always a pleasure to watch your vids. I started playing with an old box sold in my country by a localization company specialized in toys. Back then, 95 or 96, it was only what I understand today as the basic set (remember having only 3° circle magic user spells, halfling, elf and dwarf as classes). The situation is, I was 10. Sufice to say, not a single rule was used as writen. It was tons of fun. We played in an also heavily modified Titan setting (the one from steve jackson and ian livingstone). TLDR: show me a table where the game is played as writen, and I will show you how to play a game not as intended. Hack it to pieces, make it your personal monster, and share your creation with the community. This is the way.
If you change the rules at all you ARE playing D&D ! Change the rules generate house-rule and stop being a cookie cut out to read a book at the rest of us trying to play a game together... This has been my D&D ruleset. Now get out there and play your games...
Long time super fan, recent detractor here to say this video was effin’ great. It’s got a bit of current news along with some hot tips. I know I’m just some random jackass on the internet, but if I’m going to complain when I see things I don’t like I think I should also offer praise when I see things I do like. This was a great one PDM. Thank you and I hope you feel well soon.
On our west marches guild server we use a lot of bonus actions. From special builds to special items bonus action is very usefull and intuitive for us. Maybe bonus action is bad for two reasons. There is not so much options for you to do or GET bonus actions, like not everybody got hunters mark or idk mysty step. Secod reason maybe is that there is to much word "action" in system and bonus action seems like reward for new player, but its not an action and there are special rules wih spells. Its a mess for new player with wording itself and explaining why its not really an action. MESS MESS MESS Then again there is wording "you cannot have any action and reaction' does that aply to bonus one ? mess So for anyone who reads it it was just topic for me to rant about. I have no solution for your table. Also speedy recovery, Professor.
Hope you're feeling better! Also, the speed of advancement that you mentioned is one of the things that really turns me off with 5e. I think 3 sessions per level is insanely fast and sometimes 5e is faster than that. In the 90's I played in a campaign that lasted 4 years and during the first 3 years we played almost every week. We ended at 9th level. That felt right. We didn't go from nobodies to near gods in 2 months of game time. It was years of game time. We traveled the world. We researched spells. We built castles. The Paladin got married. Stuff that took time and added verisimilitude to the game. Now it's like speed running through the game.
5:37 this. So much this. I don’t care what anyone on the internet thinks of how I play unless they are actually at my table, so, 99.999999% of the time I just don’t care
Your channel changed a lot in my view of this game. Thank you for that. Would appreciate seeing more content about the history of the hobby and other interesting mechanic reviews (if I can call It so) like that. It shifts perspective in a good way. Thanks again
I used to be hung up on being a stickler for the rules. Over the years I've relaxed on doing that and reflected on what's actually more fun at the table for everyone. Rules can certainly help facilitate play and narrative, but it should only ever play that supporting role and be changed to fit the circumstances. With initiative, I now have whomever starts the combat is first to go. Since I use a virtual tabletop (MapTool), rolling and keeping track of initiative order is easy so that's done for everyone going after. If I were at a table I might just have it circle around the table from them, to keep it fast and simple. I've only got 3 players in my group, but even then 5e can become a slog with how much each character can do and people wanting to optimize their actions. Part of why I like systems like Deathbringer and Shadowdark is it keeps turns quick and succinct, with each action being impactful.
Excellent counsel for players and game masters! Any fantasy RPG can trace its origins back to some edition of D&D. They all started out as someone thinking, “What if we represented this in this other way that I think is better?” Announcer: And the chant begins in the arena, “Deathbringer! Deathbringer! Deathbringer!” Hack away, folks, and make it your own!
11:48 "a game master is a game designer ". Funnily enough I got into a heated debate about this with a group of ttrpgs players last week (not all dyed in the wool 5e players). Apparently this stance can be contentious!
In the videogame industry, despite many many many many many horrible and incredibly flawed things in that industry, one thing that's done right is dm'ing a long running DND campaign is geniunely a good spot of experience to have one. Resume. If you were able to design and curate a long running game that kept players engaged that's directly a translatsble skill to videogsme design.
It's contentious, not because it's inherently wrong, but because it's used to justify shipping half-finished stuff with the expectation the GM fixes it. I know i'm on guard when I hear it because it either means "You should be comfortable with changing rules to suit what you're doing" or "Having to fix content you paid up to 40-60 dollars for is okay, actually". When it comes to 5e, it can tend towards the latter pretty often, especially if you break into the final tier of play. If someone can get a satifsying experience for everyone out of a level 15-20 set of games with a party of martials and casters without having to start _really_ deviating from RAW (or shirking from combat) I would be very impressed, and in my opinion, that's not good. Adjusting the game is good, and the correct move often. _Having_ to adjust the game suggests the system is underdeveleoped or has holes.
@@Pee-z9n I agree that can be a problem, however that's not why they found it contentious. They felt that adapting the content of a game didn't rise to the level of "game design". I agree there's no excuse for half finished products, however I also think a GM adapting a game is an inherent part of the game, to lesser or greater degrees depending on the game system.
My position has always been that "a person who designs games is a game designer." I think it's indisputable that the GM in most game systems acts as a game designer.
Get well soon! As a general rule I favour momentum over slavish obedience to the initiative rules and players are expected to know what they want to do when their turn comes up or they miss their turn etc. however I will be trying out the random initiative starting point from seating position, I am depressed it never occured to me before😆 Also, the simultaneous throwing of combat dice works well but can be awkward if the dice aren't distinctive enough.👍
4:00 this is exactly why some of my NPCs will proactively start conversations with specific PCs. The purpose behind the mechanics was not to encourage players to min-max themselves out of half the game.
Unfortunately, 5E and many systems use dice mechanics for social encounters, so smart players will choose the higher odds if they have the option to do so. This generally creates poor situations where it's some Frankenstein's monster of dice + dialogue... let the dice determine the dialogue or let the dialogue determine the dice imho. It has to be disappointing to invest in social aspects and have the DM/GM bypass it with targeted interactions. Let your player's shine at what they're good at or they won't see a point making characters with specific skill-sets; then you'll be stuck with a table full of combat-focused characters.
@@Darkzen24you really outdid yourself with this post attempting to justify a high charisma score character. Personally, I'd love to be at a table where the only stats are for combat and everything else is role play. Heck, I don't even need stats for combat, dice are enough.
@ Yes, any time you mess with a player's agency, more often than not they get disappointed. I've seen it numerous times when limiting rules (i.e. RAW stuff that I feel is imbalanced), ones that player's built their characters around. If you have someone who wants to be the "face" and you bypass them, you're restricting that player's agency. The simple truth is that it's a game, the character's attributes are used as derivatives to create how good/bad they are at various tasks... social interaction within the game is one such task. So if the player sucks at being intimidating, that doesn't mean his character does too. Just like very few players can actually swing a melee weapon well, but their characters are elite warriors.
There's a series of books that are selling really well on DrivethruRPG called ACKS II that add 100s of rules to the game and I can't imagine how unfun sitting at a table with the GM that wants to calculate the cost of feeding an army for an entire campaign sounds.
It's a target audience issue - guys playing that want domain management rules, etc. That said i'm not a huge fan of it myself for a variety of reasons.
This is a perfect job for the new AIs. Instead of having them actually DM, have them track stuff people usually don't want to have to track, and chime in when it makes sense to, only to be easily ignored or muted when they inevitably blabber on for too long about logistics.
Get well soon PDM! Totally agree with you here as well - my players all love combat so I use a lot of rules similar to yours to make combat encounters faster, bloodier and more dynamic. Combat should feel cinematic and deadly and not just be about slowly chipping away at a giant pile of hitpoints.
I'm designing a game myself, Professor. I was going for kitchen sink options, but reducing downtime is a compelling point. Cutting back might be something to consider. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Totally agree with you, Prof ! We play the game to create on the fly cooperative fiction, so while playing that should be first and describing rules stuff second.
The joy being adult players is that we have experience to draw from. The problem with it is that the young people don't see it that way. Someday they will be our age and they will look back and go, I was an idiot. Great video professor.
Boomer comment, honestly. The video has nothing whatsoever to do with generations of players. It's about rules complication and getting through the rounds of battle within a reasonable timeframe.
100% right. We had someone who kept the stack of 3.5 books next to himself so he could min/max every single turn. (DM's son, took 20 min every time it came to his turn.) That's why we switched to Shadowdark. We love it, no more watching grass grow between turns. (He and his dad are gone, too.)
I am always learning new things from this channel. Thank you Professor! That "we all take our turn at the same time" totally makes sense the way you put it, even through a stuffy nose
great vid prof! I'll see you at PAGE. can't wait to shake you hand and thank you for your service! lol. i too am getting over the funk. Trying to beat it before PAGE and throwing the kitchen sink at it so i don't "patient-zero" the place. i love that you told some personal stories in this vid about the kid's table. i have two quick anecdotes of my own: - i'm running DotMM in r/20 and trying to do RAW for the punishment of honoring the system. However moving in real space (no ToM) for roll20 is cumbersome, and positional combat with 6 players is a slog. although it really helps with environmental story telling such as marking halls and tracking space (like a good cartographer should), it's still missing a narrative edge i struggle to maintain. I'm not sure eliminating BA is my solution, but your vid gave me some things to think about. - Regarding each table is unique to players. very true. I have one player in my homebrew game that gets math-blindness when its his turn. 3 attacks +prof+ dex + magic dmg + poison ammo + class/situation bonus makes him panic when everyone is waiting on him to add it all up. So i told him to take a note pad and pre-roll; roll twice several times (in case of ADV/DisADV) and roll up his damages off turn. If he misses, skip to the next roll. It really helps him stay in the narrative so he can have fun saying how he looks or what he might say heroically instead of staring at dice for 3 minutes.
Hi Professor, long time viewer, first time commentor. I really am intrigued by that technique you mentioned about having all the players take their action at the same time, the entire round being finished in about 30 seconds. That could really transform combat and I'm definitely going to try that out with my groups. You always have a great perspective on games and collective story telling; thanks so much for your work!
I'm running a 7 player table right now and I tweak the rules to make things move. Sometimes too fast! We play with a 4 hour window and I'm usually only filling three, not wanting to start the next act because we won't finish it. They pwned the much-dreaded banshee they encountered last night because they were forewarned by their guide that there were banshees in the barrow and the cleric came prepared with a Silence spell. It was glorious.
Another great video. Back when I played 1E AD&D and Moldvay B/X, we homebrewed all sorts of things and picked and chose rules. I was once in a D&D game with 15 PEOPLE. You could cook a 3 course meal before your turn came around again and you say "I swing my sword."
6:08 I vaguely remember a paragraph in my 1st ed AD&D manual where it says something like, “the rules in this book are just guidelines, feel free to change them to suit your play style.” By DM had the idea that dexterity is more important for combat than strength, so he changed the bonuses for “to hit” and damage do the dexterity bonus. When i started DMing i thought dexterity gets the axe on target but strength drives it in, so i used dexterity for the “to hit” bonus and strength for the damage.
Thank you so much for sharing that initiative rule with us (the one where everyone rolls a d20 per round, and who ever gets the highest goes first, then everyone else goes clockwise). I normally just let the players go first, unless they are ambushed, but I'm going to try that one out in my next Shadowdark game, because that sounds fun (and easy). You get better! and Thank you!
At our table, if initiative is even needed (sometimes you know who goes first based on the story and situation), initiative is rolled as d20 + ability modifier and then we progress clockwise starting at the highest roll... and the bad guys / gm occupy the 6 o'clock slot (unless there are many of them then they occupy the 6 and 12 o'clock slot) at the table. So typically some players take their turns, then the gm, then the rest of the players. 1 move and 1 action per turn, getting an extra action per turn is only via a special ability / power (ie. a second attack due to your magic sword). When it is a players turn I turn to them and say "ok it is your turn, what do you do, 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.." and if they do not have an answer by the time I count down from 5 then their character takes no action this turn as they are caught in indecisiveness. The wolves attacking them will not wait for them to decide what to do... After this happened a few times the players really start to make sure they are thinking about what they want to do before it gets to their turn... I like the idea of everyone declare what your are going to do and then everyone roll at the same time... I will work that in at some point and maybe combine it with the above method. as a group "everyone think of and tell me what action your character is going to take 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.." Great video as always !
Great video. I've always been a fan of having initiative. Be a set score and just having the players sit in rotation so that the one to the right of the GM starts the combat and it just continues around to the end
Bonus / reactions at first blush appear to be a game system's surrender to players' inability to wait. By giving them the ability to do more things, they don't have to choose between things. Contrast with 1e where you can either move, or attack. A Charge action is a hybrid which lets you take a x2 movement and then make one melee attack at the end, but you can only do it once per 10 rounds. Otherwise, if you want to attack, you need to start out within 1" of the enemy (a proto-5' step if you like). If you charge, you get +2 to hit but -2 to AC, and when charging against spears they deal double damage if they hit you. So, if two groups meet, there's a bit of mind-games as to which side will blow their first round moving in, or will both sides sidle up a little and hurl missiles, or who will take the plunge and charge, etc. Note too that if you want to flee at double move, you can't do it for 9 more rounds if you charge in! There's a lot of decisionmaking and counterplays and ways that equipment (weapon choice, armor type resulting in a movement rate, use of caltrops) and strategy (preparing or choosing the battlefield, knowing your escape route and having it at your back) can take advantage of player skill to influence the outcome. Heck, in 1e you can't cast a spell and move at all in the same round. I think bonus actions and reactions are fine as long as you observe the Inverse Law of Ninjas. Which is: the fewer ninjas there are in the fight, the more powerful they each are. So, if there's one monster, even if not a boss-type monster, it gets more than one bonus action or reaction of its own. Specifically, total all the PCs, add up 2 bonus actions and 2 reactions per PC, and then split those up among all the monsters on the enemy side. A 6-man party fighting one Orc has to confront his 12 bonus actions and 12 reactions! You may not like green eggs and ham, but he's gonna give it you ya. Also, every time a PC takes an action where he literally can't fail, the difference between his roll result and the target number needed is dealt to him in d6s of HP damage that cannot be absorbed, reduced, deflected, etc. and bypasses things like Temp HP. It's, uh, over-strain or something. This house rule encourages diversification and discourages specialization, but does not prohibit it, which leads to some hilarious outcomes later on. Next up, and this is less a house rule and more an exhortation to the gaming public, if a piece of content (especially a short) features someone rolling a 1 or a 20, report it and give it a thumbs-down. There are 18 more results possible on a d20, and we need to see those once in a while instead of exclusively 1s and 20s.
Prowlers and Paragons lets you do anything you could do with bonus actions and reactions without slowing the game down and without requiring special specific rules for them.
Thank you for shouting out aphantasia. As someone who a couple years ago learned that I am not "normal" it was a shock to my system to learn that when people are asked to imagine something in their minds... They can actually see it. I'm not going to hate on theater of the mind as a play style (it certainly makes set up and tear down easy). But I'm just sitting there imagining the half-orc looks exactly like my friend across the table because... That's all I've got. 😂
@@LeFlamelI definitely prefer playing with minis. I can't "picture" any monsters, scenery, or anything else in my mind. It's gotten me into a bit of trouble when I DM because I might describe a killing blow a bit too graphically for my group, and I need to figure out some details to describe ahead of time because I can't just conjure up an imaginary place by visualizing things I've seen in real life or movies.
Spot on as always, that's why I love dungeon craft videos. Thanks for sharing how you run a combat round, I am always looking for ways to speed up combat. Keep up the great work. Hope you feel better soon.
Great video Prof. "GM's job is to know what rules to use, and which rules to cut" sums up everything. Any game is meant to be fun. The GM should not be trying to prove how well they know every rule, but how well they can facilitate their group(s) to enjoy their gameplay. It's about the players. The GM has fun having the players outwit them, enjoy the game, and look forward to the next session. As long as the players know what the rules are, and that they are suggestions only, that's all that matters.
I introduced zoned combat to my 5e adult players, mostly because the guy that I expected to throw a tantrum if I ever did is no longer in my group. I got all the questions: how are we going to know who fireball hits? etc. Not by counting squares, i replied, you're just going to have to trust me. The non-believers were quickly converted on how much faster it went. Finding out what people want to do at the top of the order also speeds things up, even if you decide to run it in initiative order. For my middle school club I don't bother with proficiencies, just all ability score checks. So much faster to create characters when I don't need to worry about that.
One other thing for the RAW stuff is that it allows things like easy convention and organized play, I've enjoyed a combo of randomess with groups of people playing adventures who don't actually know each other and with groups that become more stable with it. Pre-Covid issues, I was playing just about every night with 3-4 for AL games in different places while running my own one night and playing in 1-2 others, now it's playing in one game a friend is running due to schedule conflicts...and before, well, I could look up areas that I'd be in for work and see if there were games with open slots, and I could just bring my characters and play without worries. With 5e, unless someone was brand new and needed a lot of help, a round wasn't that long and there were character deaths (ones outside of the upped likelihood that the Tomb of Annihalation season had with it's meat grinder that had a lot of people running adventures outside of it to try advancing enough characters to the later levels to experience the later stages of it...place had a memorial wall for organized play with like 20 leading up to Tomb, then over a hundred during it. That campaign is already infamous for being deadly for a party that's used to working together, having more randomized teams with no prior clue to what characters are there...and later whatever dregs were left for the last few parts, it becomes even more brutal. It's a very different type of play compared to home games... Also, 5e's bonus actions are basically a renamed version of 3.5's Swift Actions, smaller things that can be done in addition to other stuff...I'd just love for things to be slightly more consistent there for things. But it's a know your class and abilities thing.
I may be stupid or missed the point, but what does initiative have to do with bonus actions? I get the point that bonus actions may slow down the game, but I don't see the co-relation
My experience as someone who's played a very long 5E campaign with 4-6 players and a bit of shorter ones: yes players should be snappy with their rules and plan their turns in advance. But I like bonus actions, because without them your turn can be a massive nothing burger (say you cast one weak healing spell or your one attack fails) and then you're waiting for your turn again. If you at least have some simple bonus action you can help your friend while you do something without either preventing the other.
I personally enjoy the feeling, as a player, of taking an efficient turn that has choices. The same feeling in a deck-builder game of using every card in your hand on your turn. I feel the Bonus Action, for both players and monsters, opens up this possibility. Saying “I swing my sword” for my action may go quickly, but it’s not as satisfying. As you say, it’s just a different style of play at the end of the day
Action pools are weirdly inflexible in 5e, and not interchangable with a common action currency; let me explain: the ops-and-tactics system can use a 100 points per-round and actions have costs (like 5 per hex movement, 30 for a normal attack, 60 for a heavy attack), is the most complex and most flexible. 3.5 pathfinder’s 3 action per turn is satisfying, but only with the swift, full-round, and double-cost actions as active mechanics that are not usually well explored.
That was an awesome video! This is my favorite content from your channel. I love game design first and foremost and your videos on this subject have always been the cream of the crop. Thanks so much for the post. I especially liked how you handle the actions to speed up play. I have been in games where it took each player forever to make their moves and it was extremely dull waiting for my turn. It wouldn't have been so bad in those situations if the players at least were making their actions as fun as the Critical Role cast but that was rarely the case. I have played with DM's who kept things moving fast and that is so much more entertaining. I will be stealing that idea for my next session with my three sons. Again, great video! Thank you for posting it even as you're under the weather. I am sorry you're not feeling well and I hope you get better soon.
Feel better soon! I'll see you this weekend at PAGE!
Hoping to meet both you and the Professor at PAGE! My 2 favorite D&D channels.
Enjoy your work Bob. I wish you and The Professor well in 2025.
Looking forward to Delve!
Looking forward to it. Picking up DeRopp at the airport in an hour.
My favourite Gygax quote is “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules”, it's as true today as it was when he said it and when they all created this wonderful game. As always loving your vids Sir.
I love that quote. Where is it from, an old Dragon magazine?
Amen
That's an reduction ad absurdum. I understand the sentiment, and agree that you are free to alter rules as you see fit... a "game" without rules isn't actually a game.
And he also said all you need to play an FRPG are these and he held up a pencil and a d20...
Personally I don't agree. For me, the rules provide a framework for game consistency which I find important.
I was able to greatly speed up combat through the use of shock collars that go off if a turn takes more the 10 seconds. Granted, players stopped showing up, but it's a work in progress.
Do you have an Amazon affiliate link? 🫨
@@Hugh839 if I did that, my friends would deliberately take their time. 😅
Players stopped showing up? Congrats, you've reduced turn time to zero!
LOl1
🤣😆🤣
I have always suspected bonus actions were invented because everyone always wants to attack in D&D. Players would see they clearly needed to take a different action, but would hesitate or feel bad about not attacking. Bonus actions could solve that, but only with a hard design rule that no bonus action can cause damage. 5E immediately let bonus actions be extra attacks, so it never worked and just made combat slower and more complicated.
Thanks for sharing.
I think BA was meant as a limiter for how many special things you could do on your turn (A: 1). But the ruleset added too many things that used this resource, so now your abilities collide with each other and, at best, it becomes a puzzle you have to solve in order to take your turn. At worst it creates pressure to weaponize it, and then to optimize it.
“Concentration” does this too IMO, but my table houseruled no-limit concentration, so we avoid that problem.
@@jasonp9508 I like the 3.X concept of concentration being the ability to keep the spell up after being damaged, so I do that sort of thing. Having multiple spells up makes it even more likely to lose a random currently up spell at my table.
I always assumed that you could only concentrate on one concentration spell at a time. Casting another spell would surely be too difficult in many cases.
Although I can imagine a few exception situations.
I agree that concentration can be (likely) broken when damage is received. But I bet it would be hard to concentrate when subjected to melee attack unless you are supremely confident that your protections are Good enough that dodging or blocking blows are not an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main attacks you do as a bonus action in 5e are the War Cleric's very limited number of extra attacks, offhand attacks for dual wielders, the Berserker's Frenzy attacks, and Spirit Weapon. I personally have no problem with bonus attacks, but I do agree that they should be small things you do in addition to the main part of your turn as opposed to something that you should always be doing on your turn.
As an oldtime D&D players (since 1977), we believed from the start that the GM can add or remove any rules that don't fit his or her campaign. If your game works for you and your players, you're doing it right.
So true. Same for me since '78, when I started GM'ing. "When should you change the rules?" "Whenever the hell you want." Just be consistent, make sure it makes sense is is fairly applied for the "other side" (monsters, opponents, etc.), and play away!
I have played since 1985, and it have always been the GM that decides how hi/she want to roll the campain and we have always had our own house rules.
Is it a new thing to not have house rules?
@@Zorato1 Nah. People always have house rules. Many of them are unwritten and unspoken.
This is the first rule of D&D set by Gygax
Yep. Concept to live by for the last umpty years.
Something that I used to teach RPGs is poker chips. Three simple colours for the common 3 actions across many games. Players turned them in when used and got them back at the start of turn. I found it helped with them understanding their turns, and they played faster. The clink they made hitting the bowl also added nicely to the action.
Tactile props are a huge plus. Ethereal concepts become tangible, visual and understandable
The term "bonus action" is really terrible, because it sounds like you're getting an extra action, but you're really not. It's really just a new way to spend an action type you already have. I think if they called it anything else, like 3E's swift action or 4E's minor action, it would be a lot more understandable.
Sounds like daggerheaet action and fear tokens which they then scrapped later
@@SkittleBombs Not familiar with those. I mostly use it to teach the action systems of games. DnD, Dark Heresy, FFGs Star Wars, and a few others. It is suprising how many systens have 3 or 4 action systems.
Nice system
If you made a video saying, "I'm sick, here's a placeholder video to appease the algorithm," I would like and comment just on principle.
Same
Agree
More Dungeoncraft
when those words are written the youtube systems can down prioritize the video because its obviously stated that its not content and people are not actually watching
Support
I find it remarkable that this needs to be said. We are the players and we are the GMs, so no one can force us to do it by the book. People who try to 'win' the game by making a powerful character, and never dying are completely missing the point of the hobby.
Preach it!
If GMs are allowed to alter the rules at the table, they might do a racism. We can't allow that.
I think a lot of the rules standardization is because of the internet
I played with a guy like that. I loved him outside of the game, but in the game, he would be so mad at me
@@whitleypedia I have met several people who have a hard time thinking outside the box, and who prefer lots of crunch in order to feel validated by their in game choices.
'Is your turn over?' Me, playing organized play dnd online with players who don't even share their damn sheets
😢😢😭
how the fuck
are they holding you at gunpoint? because that's what it'd take for me to run that
Meanwhile, in pathfinder, if they did 3 things, you know their turn is over
I'm glad others feel my pain.
It would be easier if I knew what actions and bonus actions you could take. Or what class you're playing...
Don't get me started on hidden backgrounds/description on DDB. Top right of a printed sheet, hidden on DDB
@@Billchu13 honestly, even if you knwo their sheets, you still have to ask, because they still might have movement left
And in general, it is very amusing zo me, how hard you can tell that bonus actions were not playtested
Precisely. All pre-written content (especially official content) is designed as a general use or one size fits all style. The "rules" are less of a governing system and more of a tool-kit - and several of these "tools" just won't suit your purposes. Adventures are not written with your table or your players' choices in mind - you HAVE TO alter the contents according to how the story plays out at your table, or according to what's cannon in YOUR setting. Monster and NPC stat-blocks are written like a base model car -they suit a general purpose, but unless you customize them, they are going to be boring, not particularly challenging, or (often enough) both.
Great topic Professor. Hope you're feeling better soon. Thanks for another awesome video.
Thanks for your support and kind words.
No, there are in fact systems that just work perfectly out of the box with zero house rules, while being more flexible than D&D in all possible scenarios.
Wishing you a speedy recovery, Professor.
"I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a variant, and there is no official interpretation from me or anyone else. If a game of ‘Dungeons and Beavers’ suits a group, all I say is more power to them, for every fine referee runs his own variant of D&D anyway."
Gary Gygax, co-creator of D&D
Alarums & Excursions #2
July 1975
Yep, Gygax sure was an idiot.
Excellent video! In Army terms- D&D rules are a guideline not a regulation. When you have enough homebrew rules, new opinions, or in depth monster/ magic philosophies, now it’s time to publish a new edition!
It literally says they are not rules but guidelines.
Nope. It's a rulebook, and the text within constitutes the rules of the game.
Both Mike and Jeremy in official interviews early on said that if they were to do it again, they wouldn't include bonus actions and would have implemented that sub-system different as part of the triggering action options.
3:25 This is also WHY the games are steering more towards mechanics; books for the GM sell to GMs. Books for player options sell to everyone else, and players outnumber GMs by a huge margin.
This pushes for software assist. This is the goal.
As someone with around ten years of experience in gaming retail, this is an idea that sounds great in a corporate meeting, In reality, GMs buy all the books and the players use the GMs books. Or the GM buys all the PDFs and sends them to the players. Granted, players that never GM might buy the core Player's Handbook, but WotC is kidding themselves about players buying a whole shelf player option books.
@@neverforged D&D 2e had a lot of extra rules, particularly with the Fighters/Bards/Priests Handbook etc.
Yet it was taken that these were completely optional.
Now it feels like it's an expectation. A "real" player supposedly needs to purchase all sanctioned modern-audience products. It's a corporately driven purity test to ensure playing is no longer a part of a game but of a lifestyle.
It's a practice and mentally that's embraced by social media "influencers" and appears largely detested by people who actually play the games.
@@MarcRougier I also think this is the goal. Make the game too complex to play with paper and pen until DnD Beyond becomes mandatory.
@@kaijuultimax9407been thinking it for a while
And that's the reason why rules-lite, more open systems sounds more appealing nowadays to me (also, minmaxing is strategy games, and even then it bores me if it takes too long to optimize)
The combat round example was great
The Cheesecake Factory Menu analogy returns! Thank you for spotlighting these independent games and systems, professor. Wishing you a speedy recovery.
I'm pretty sure this has largely been Merles' position on the bonus action since shortly after the 2014 launch. I remember hearing that this was his opinion a LONG time ago.
Ask him on my Facebook group. He's a member.
@DUNGEONCRAFT1 As an aside, I hope you feel better soon. My wife and I are truckers, and we are both working while sick at the moment. No fun.
I was about to say this same thing. I recall Mearls regretting Bonus actions years ago. It was probably in an interview, and said less directly. I want to say it was in a discussion that also included the Paladin being his favorite class mechanically and trying to get the others to operate more like it. And this might be someone else, at a similar ti.e, but I swear he thought that the druid shouldn't be a caster, or less of a caster, and focus on shapechanging and other magical abilities. He has/had a lot of ideas for a 5e 2.0.
He must have known back then, as soon as the game released and people started playing it. The feature was never playtested and it shows. "I wanna cast fireball and then misty step away. One is action, the other bonus action" is one of the most common and most frustrating things you have to explain to a new player because RAW say so. Even now, some 10+ years later.
@@marianpetera8436 The feature WAS playtested, in multiple fashions, during the D&D Next playtest. Minor actions, swift actions, different types of reaction, extra actions(different from extra attacks), etc. Pretty much all of this was shot down on the playtest forums over the course of *two years.* WotC chose to drop 5e with the "bonus action" system in a fashion worse than anything playtested, and it ballooned up to epic proportions by 2017 or so.
"Cheescake Factory menu of options..." Love it!
Hope your health recovers before the convention.
Get well soon.
i run ShadowDark with 7 players....and now get them all to move simultaneously and then take their actions going round the table.
They play much better as a team together.
And the fights feel better because of this.
My wife and I use to run a D&D night at the local bookstore where we would routinely get between 20-30 regular players showing up weekly. This was 3.0. My rule was you needed to be ready to go when it was your turn, or you get skipped (and you had to buy at least one thing from the store). I would lay out the scenario, call for initiative, ask the highest roller to start, and go in order until everyone at the table got a chance to do their action or get skipped. Then I would work through their actions cinematically. We generally got through one major combat, one major change in location, and one major plot point in the story each session, with rewards including leveling at the end. I would start each session with the players recapping what they did last session, and have scheduled breaks. Had players ages 8-62. Good times.
I get the point. Old School DND is you go and attack or you cast a spell. Now bonus actions are allowing you to attack again, drink a potion and attack, cast a healing spell and attack. Cast a damage enhancing spell and attack etc. There can be a decision paralysis that forms when you have 6 players that all have a move, action, and bonus action to take when in olden days they just would have moved and swung their sword.
However, I love that bonus actions are minor-like mechanics that add flavor to a class - The Rogue gets to hide or sneak as a bonus action (or gaurantee they can sneak attack their target), The Fighter gets a little bit of healing with second wind, the Cleric can cast a heal spell, Monks can punch-punch, Rangers cast hunter's mark, Barbarians go into Rage mode. I think the bigger issue has become "what's a bonus action versus an action" as some things have been changed with the 5.5 rules to be bonus actions (like the Paladin's lay on Hands) in order to make it easier to go "OKay I attack as an action, and bonus action lay of hands myself" when it became a dramatic and tough decision "Do I heal cause I'm almost dead or attack to try and kill the target?"
I personally prefer the flavor of the bonus action.
Any even cursory study of "Old School D&D" indicates there were far more decisions to be made back then because nearly every PC also was shepherding around a henchman and a couple of hirelings. Gary's own stories from his original campaigns describe 12 to 14 total characters (being played by roughly six people) were traipsing about dungeons like a small army. Which absolutely tracks since the game was based on wargaming. Take a look at the numbers of characters each old school module assumed. The modules also assumed a balance of classes (to the extreme that the modules' authors often cited the need for a specific combo of classes and the gross number of bodies expected to be able to finish the module).
Same. The bonus action is the cool "here's something else that *I* can do." It's when a lot of characters get to shine. In a recent campaign I was pretty bored in combat while playing my Paladin, and that's when he should shine. It was "OK, I attack. All right, done." He had a few spells and other abilities to use in combat, but I had the shortest turns of anyone at the table. In the meantime the Rogue was darting in and out of melee, the Moon Druid was turning into animals and elementals, and the Bard was attacking and healing or giving inspiration.
Or you could just play 3.5e or even PF and have a 3-action economy where a BA is a single cost and a regular action is 2-3 actions in cost.
@ Right, but isn't that just changing the name of what's happening?
Agreed. The move attack, move attack gets old. Still Professor DM is correct that combat does tend to drag a bit. This is partly where I think the 3 action economy of Pathfinder is interesting. Still for the record I have not played Pathfinder, so more an intellectual liking vs experience.
Part of the problem right now is that many people (like myself) have had to find online games. So, there is logical pressure for DMs to play close to RAW with only a few home rules when one is scouting the world wide web for players. Those lucky to play with the same people consistently, does open the door for more homebrewed or modified rules.
9:31 I love this simultaneous rolling!
I currently DM a table for 8 players, all complete newbies or close to it. We play 5e 2014 rules (phb and dmg only) I personally very much like the bonus actions. A bonus action is something that sets your character apart, because it's directly tied to your class or (in rare cases) a special piece of equipment. If your character has no bonus actions to take, they can't do anything as a bonus action - that's why for instance drinking a potion should never be a bonus action, because it's something everyone can do. Everything else on the player's turn is either an action or a free part of your movement at the DM's discretion - there, done. If you can't manage that and still don't get players to finish their turn in about 30 seconds, once players have gotten used to the game by session 2 or 3, I don't think the problem is the rules. For my party, I always has written on a whiteboard what their turn consists of and what they can do outside their turn. A player's turn consists at most of 3 things: action (or ready action), movement and a bonus action, if they have one. If that's unmanageable to you, I don't know what to tell you.
Getting rid of bonus actions completely stifles classes like rogue and monk, because part of their deal in the early levels are, that they can do mundane stuff as bonus actions.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! I know how ya feel, Professor. There are so many "plagues" going around this season, I almost feel lucky I only caught one of them!
Thank you kindly.
You are not the only sick youtuber I have been watching... it is the season
Not a fun one for sure.
I started d&d with the earliest box set. There were 3 playable characters.
Then on to the first hard back books. And played many years on them, many different dungeon masters...I learned the newer rules playing the second never winter nights ( I did play the AOL version for several months) and the rule changes were fun.
Sadly since then I never got (or took) the chance to play at a table again. Perhaps some day.
I have kept up with many content providers and your one of the most enjoyable and knowledgeable.
I found critical role and started watching near the end of campaign one...and it felt so much like the early days of friends around a table and I was hooked.
Back to the topic 🤪
There is so much going on with 5.0 and 😡 the newest rules 🤬...
I have to agree it's to many things one character can do in a single round. And it slows down combat.
Thank you for your continued videos even when sick...got to feed that TH-cam monster or it will bite off your hand like a foolish thief trying to unlock a mimic ☠️
Ayyyy, thanks for the Mention! Whitebox Cyclopedia is gonna ROCK AND ROLL all night long.
I tend to love your advice, especially about not getting too caught up in the mechanics and worrying about every tiny little bonus or rule interaction. However, telling my friend “it’s only a 5% difference it won’t change the game” is not a compelling argument to someone currently getting their masters in statistics, lol. Sometimes it’s hard to make quick calls and keep the game moving with players who LOVE mechanics-centered play.
On another note, I’m really interested in the Zewihander initiative, thanks for mentioning it! Definitely going to bring it up next time I run a game.
Another reason the d20 is a trash resolution mechanic.
Great video. I don’t believe I have played a Dnd game from AD&D to 5e without house rules.
me neither. And that's going back to 1982.
The fact that it usually takes 10 minutes before it's my turn again is the #1 reason that I don't like being a player and prefer to GM. Being a player is too boring.
That is also why when I am a player, and we're playing online, I'm usually working on the other monitor.
Painfully accurate.
Can you use a bonus action to make bacon?
Take it from the old school of rolling combat.
Combat starts, both sides deliberate together & declare actions. One initiative roll for each side. Can use a 60/90/120 sec timer to keep rounds short.
Goes insanely faster and helps build camaraderie among the party, talking to each other, instead of being on their phone or on the other monitor.
Skill issue. Both on other people taking their turns too slow and the DM failing to make engaging combat.
Also people tuning out when it's not their turn instead of thinking about it as the situation develops.
Also not letting players remain engaged by communicating out of character outside their turn.
I've ran encounters with 6 PCs, followers, and upward of 20 enemies, and it didnt take that long to finish a round. (or when it does it barely counts for this because each player ran 2 characters plus possibly a follower)
Stop playing D&D.
Great video Professor, loved it and agreed with every word! The only comment I have is that currently taking out bonus action out of 5e (or 5.5 or 5e2024 or whatever) is too difficult as there are far too many character abilities and spells that rely on the presence of bonus action. Just another reason not to play 5e anymore I guess! (actually, ran my first Dragonbane game today for my high school students, 5e veterans all, they loved it and it went so much faster despite it being their first session playing that game with zero rule explanation)
Dragonbane is lots of fun.
The "everybody rolls at once" thing is something I've been thinking about to speed up the game of Lancer that I want to run.
It's a role-playing system about piloting mechs and the attacks often have many steps and dependent effects, so taking a page out of the old war games and doing all the movement and movement-related rolls and then everybody rolling their attacks at once feels like it should be the way to play.
At the same time, when characters aren't in their mechs the game goes rules-lite and character's "trigger" rolls are basically a single roll for things that would be whole D&D encounters.
I'm a big fan of Gundam Wing and Armored Trooper VOTOMS, so I really appreciate characters having *broad* ability.
Prof. DM
That was an excellent video, I loved and agreed with just about everything you said.
Well done sir!
Cheers from Canada
Bob
This was the best DM advice video this channel has yet made!
I love all Dungeon Craft videos
Everytime I brainstorm ideas for how I might run a 5e game and what optional rules I would use, I get bombarded on all sides by comments saying I should use this or that other game or how I am ruining 5e. It serves to keep me in my OSR space, where hacking is traditional and accepted.I will just adapt the 5e ideas I like into my BX game.
Excellent advice. We all wind up making our own dnd at the table, but many who start out dming have the sense that they need to wait for permission to make changes.
Thumbs up for fever role-play, opening & closing the sweater
lol
I was gonna comment on Patreon and thought I'd save it for TH-cam and the algorithm:
I like Bonus Actions! But I agree that they function best at a table of 3 or less players, and even better when all players are familiar with the turn structure and their character abilities. My own homebrew d20 game uses bonus actions to good effect, but I run for 3 players who've all been playing the same characters for 5 years.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Thanks for your support on Patreon.
Hope you feel better soon, Professor.
Hoping to get to meet you at the PAGE.
Thanks. I'll be there!
Thanks for your videos Professor, and wish you a speedy recovery
Thank you kindly.
I have had the same opinion on bonus actions for some time. A few years back I was introducing some new players to the game and on discussing the action economy, I made it clear that BA were not a mandatory action each turn. However, each turn became a slog as the players wanted to maximize their turn and would struggle on how to spend that BA. Often looking to invent new ways use the mechanic. Some with flavor (which is cool) , but most were looking to exploit some additional mechanical advantage. I just remember my players saying."Ok with my action I do this.. and with my BA I will (insert a litany of options they wanted my ruling on). It was then that I realized that the 5e action economy was only a *slight* improvement on 3/3.5e and a push on 4e (both were bad). Additionally, as those players became for proficient with the game, they were looking to maximize class synergies. It is the BA that allows for a significant number of these crazy multi-class game-breaking synergies.
It seems like the ways rules are now structured encourage PC optimization, is if it's a response to a things being built in a way that actually hamper rather than enable players.
Bonuses stacked on perks stacked on equipment and traits work out great in video games like Diablo 3, where it all ends up in real-time at ridiculous difficulties.
But at a table, these builds are like trying to undo limitations that didn't need to be imposed in the first place.
While too simple can be boring, too bogged down with extra rules becomes a frustrating slog that makes players just want to do something else.
@@crimzongaming5470 I don't think simple alone is boring. It depends on the style of campaign. I like simple rules in a narrative focused campaign were story and role play are the focus, and not tactical combat. I personally prefer a well crafted tactical combat system in a narrative game. But simple can be a nice break.
What is boring is running and playing either game when the characters are superheroes, who face no real threat or chance of failure. This is what 5e has become.
The best games are those with actual stakes. The most memorable moments are usually those where either the party made it through by the skin of their teeth through a little luck or with a truly clever strategy. Or those where the party actually lost a character. That doesn't often happen with maxed out cheese/meta builds involving broken combos.
Great video! Players need a PhD to figure out the action economy. Bonus actions do bog the game down. There’s move, action, at-will, reaction, bonus actions..
Prowlers and Paragons : You can move and you can take one or more actions. End of.
Great gm advice! I kinda feel the same about bonus actions in 5e often. Thanks for all your hard work and putting hours in like I used to as a chef. Get some rest and get better soon. I’m looking forward to the tower crafting video!
You are like the U.S. Mail motto: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Yeah, it's a shame budget cuts isn't one of the enumerated things that wont stay them from doing their jobs. Oh, that could be misinterpreted... Budgets cuts for the postal service are dumb, not the workers for not being able to make up for it.
I love the dice rolling at the same time! Excellent. :) BTW, I would love to see a video on the unspoken rules that always happen at a table. For example, I remember one time I made a "fun" character. A fremlin. A flying goblin type creature way back in 2nd ed. I knew that the character would be there for roleplaying and fun. But I also remember one time, fighting a fire giant, a creature I really couldn't do much in combat to. I cast an illusion on the Fire Giant to make it look like his body was covered in rot grubs. The fire giant could have disbelieved and easily made a saving throw. The giant wasn't a dummy. But the DM threw me a bone. The giant wasted an action brushing off the illusions and then snapped out of it. So, the DM threw me a bone when he didn't have to. In exchange, I didn't try to finagle more goodwill out of the DM. I didn't keep trying to make new illusions of things, because I didn't want to try his patience. I think this dance of rules / bending the rules is an interesting one. I would love to hear the good Professor's take on it.
I am happy to do this kind of stuff, if a character burns resources to do it. Otherwise, no.
An understated aspect of GMing is remembering that enemies do LEARN unless they're totally mindless. If I was GMing, for the second illusion attempt the giant would have advantage on the save.
@ This long, long before the idea of Advantage. :)
@ could raise the DC, either way
4:14 I knew there was a reason I like this guy... Oh, sometimes the Professor's opinion is....his opinion and not, oh, say, mine, but that said, what the good Professor is saying about his 3 key permeances spot on (my opinion, of course). You can Google Gary Gygax and see his own words stating as much. The rules work however you and your table need them to work, thus, no two tables are the same. Been my experience since the 70's.
Gygax was an idiot.
Been playing a video game recently (Tactics Ogre)....the initiative system is called Reaction Time...every action you do add RT and on your turn, you do a move action (it add 3 RT per square you move, up to a certain maximum, also dependant on race, special equipment). Now, you can do an attack (or cast a spell) that adds a certain RT. You could also use optionally some skill that adds RT on top of that. After acting, the unit is then queued based on the RT "used". Also units have a base RT based on equipment, race, and whatnot. So, a fast unit (fairy, no equipment) could potentially act twice before the heavy knight. Pretty sure that would be easy to implement on the game table (didn't try yet). It won't help to get a faster pace but it's appealing strategy-wise. You can for example move less than your max and skip an action this turn to try to act sooner. Obviously there is no more "rounds", some math involved (players got to know the RT they use).
Waiting 10 minutes to take a turn IS criminal negligence. Truth!
at my table the players were always trying to do the weirdest stuff on their turn, and that led to a lot of hilarious situations.
Just get better players.
What about taking 2 hours till you start to be a part of the game at all? I dunno if it would take more, because I walked out bored after that point.
First of all: Get better soon! Love your well thought out opinions, especially because you never say something like "it is bad, period", more like "this works if you ..., BUT ...". At the end, it is a game and the purpose of the game is that everyone involved (yes, also the DM!) has fun. Though I think, the more options a game provides, the better. It's easier to ditch option that you think will bloat your game than to invent new stuff. I have a DM that sticks to Pathfinder 1e because he thinks that 5e is not granular enough in terms of options :D
PS: I'm German native speaker and I always cringe when you butcher "Zweihänder" :D
In my experience bonus actions didn't significantly slow down play. I think they're being unfairly scapegoated for a deeper problem with how the classes are designed. In the past, martial classes had quick and easy turns, and it was only the Wizard's players who took 10 minutes to pick a spell and figure out how it worked. But now, every class has a similarly over long list of special powers and/or spells, so they all take as long as the Wizard used to, while the Wizard/Sorceror has also grown more complex and thus takes even longer.
On the hardcore mode; I had an idea to make the game easier/harder by adjusting the rolls for stats.
To make it easier you can either roll Five Dice (Keep three highest) *OR* have one preset to six and roll three dice (Keep the six plus two highest).
To make it harder reduce the dice to *just* three die *OR* have one preset to two or three and roll three dice (Keep the six plus two highest).
Being mentioned by Professor DM alongside Mike Mearls just made my day. Thanks again for sharing my D&D house rule, Dan. Wishing you a speedy recovery!
Professor is always a pleasure to watch your vids.
I started playing with an old box sold in my country by a localization company specialized in toys. Back then, 95 or 96, it was only what I understand today as the basic set (remember having only 3° circle magic user spells, halfling, elf and dwarf as classes). The situation is, I was 10. Sufice to say, not a single rule was used as writen. It was tons of fun. We played in an also heavily modified Titan setting (the one from steve jackson and ian livingstone).
TLDR: show me a table where the game is played as writen, and I will show you how to play a game not as intended.
Hack it to pieces, make it your personal monster, and share your creation with the community. This is the way.
If you change the rules at all you ARE playing D&D ! Change the rules generate house-rule and stop being a cookie cut out to read a book at the rest of us trying to play a game together... This has been my D&D ruleset. Now get out there and play your games...
I concur!
Brainless.
Long time super fan, recent detractor here to say this video was effin’ great. It’s got a bit of current news along with some hot tips. I know I’m just some random jackass on the internet, but if I’m going to complain when I see things I don’t like I think I should also offer praise when I see things I do like. This was a great one PDM. Thank you and I hope you feel well soon.
On our west marches guild server we use a lot of bonus actions. From special builds to special items bonus action is very usefull and intuitive for us. Maybe bonus action is bad for two reasons. There is not so much options for you to do or GET bonus actions, like not everybody got hunters mark or idk mysty step. Secod reason maybe is that there is to much word "action" in system and bonus action seems like reward for new player, but its not an action and there are special rules wih spells. Its a mess for new player with wording itself and explaining why its not really an action. MESS MESS MESS Then again there is wording "you cannot have any action and reaction' does that aply to bonus one ? mess
So for anyone who reads it it was just topic for me to rant about. I have no solution for your table. Also speedy recovery, Professor.
Thanks for your support and comments.
Hope you're feeling better! Also, the speed of advancement that you mentioned is one of the things that really turns me off with 5e. I think 3 sessions per level is insanely fast and sometimes 5e is faster than that. In the 90's I played in a campaign that lasted 4 years and during the first 3 years we played almost every week. We ended at 9th level. That felt right. We didn't go from nobodies to near gods in 2 months of game time. It was years of game time. We traveled the world. We researched spells. We built castles. The Paladin got married. Stuff that took time and added verisimilitude to the game. Now it's like speed running through the game.
5:37 this. So much this. I don’t care what anyone on the internet thinks of how I play unless they are actually at my table, so, 99.999999% of the time I just don’t care
Your channel changed a lot in my view of this game. Thank you for that. Would appreciate seeing more content about the history of the hobby and other interesting mechanic reviews (if I can call It so) like that. It shifts perspective in a good way. Thanks again
I used to be hung up on being a stickler for the rules. Over the years I've relaxed on doing that and reflected on what's actually more fun at the table for everyone. Rules can certainly help facilitate play and narrative, but it should only ever play that supporting role and be changed to fit the circumstances.
With initiative, I now have whomever starts the combat is first to go. Since I use a virtual tabletop (MapTool), rolling and keeping track of initiative order is easy so that's done for everyone going after. If I were at a table I might just have it circle around the table from them, to keep it fast and simple.
I've only got 3 players in my group, but even then 5e can become a slog with how much each character can do and people wanting to optimize their actions. Part of why I like systems like Deathbringer and Shadowdark is it keeps turns quick and succinct, with each action being impactful.
Excellent counsel for players and game masters! Any fantasy RPG can trace its origins back to some edition of D&D. They all started out as someone thinking, “What if we represented this in this other way that I think is better?”
Announcer: And the chant begins in the arena, “Deathbringer! Deathbringer! Deathbringer!”
Hack away, folks, and make it your own!
11:48 "a game master is a game designer ". Funnily enough I got into a heated debate about this with a group of ttrpgs players last week (not all dyed in the wool 5e players). Apparently this stance can be contentious!
In the videogame industry, despite many many many many many horrible and incredibly flawed things in that industry, one thing that's done right is dm'ing a long running DND campaign is geniunely a good spot of experience to have one. Resume. If you were able to design and curate a long running game that kept players engaged that's directly a translatsble skill to videogsme design.
It's contentious, not because it's inherently wrong, but because it's used to justify shipping half-finished stuff with the expectation the GM fixes it. I know i'm on guard when I hear it because it either means "You should be comfortable with changing rules to suit what you're doing" or "Having to fix content you paid up to 40-60 dollars for is okay, actually". When it comes to 5e, it can tend towards the latter pretty often, especially if you break into the final tier of play. If someone can get a satifsying experience for everyone out of a level 15-20 set of games with a party of martials and casters without having to start _really_ deviating from RAW (or shirking from combat) I would be very impressed, and in my opinion, that's not good. Adjusting the game is good, and the correct move often. _Having_ to adjust the game suggests the system is underdeveleoped or has holes.
@@Pee-z9n I agree that can be a problem, however that's not why they found it contentious. They felt that adapting the content of a game didn't rise to the level of "game design".
I agree there's no excuse for half finished products, however I also think a GM adapting a game is an inherent part of the game, to lesser or greater degrees depending on the game system.
My position has always been that "a person who designs games is a game designer." I think it's indisputable that the GM in most game systems acts as a game designer.
Why am I paying professional game designers if I have to do their job for them?
Get well soon! As a general rule I favour momentum over slavish obedience to the initiative rules and players are expected to know what they want to do when their turn comes up or they miss their turn etc. however I will be trying out the random initiative starting point from seating position, I am depressed it never occured to me before😆 Also, the simultaneous throwing of combat dice works well but can be awkward if the dice aren't distinctive enough.👍
4:00 this is exactly why some of my NPCs will proactively start conversations with specific PCs. The purpose behind the mechanics was not to encourage players to min-max themselves out of half the game.
Unfortunately, 5E and many systems use dice mechanics for social encounters, so smart players will choose the higher odds if they have the option to do so. This generally creates poor situations where it's some Frankenstein's monster of dice + dialogue... let the dice determine the dialogue or let the dialogue determine the dice imho.
It has to be disappointing to invest in social aspects and have the DM/GM bypass it with targeted interactions. Let your player's shine at what they're good at or they won't see a point making characters with specific skill-sets; then you'll be stuck with a table full of combat-focused characters.
@Darkzen24 Does it have to be disappointing? Did you ask them?
@@Darkzen24you really outdid yourself with this post attempting to justify a high charisma score character.
Personally, I'd love to be at a table where the only stats are for combat and everything else is role play.
Heck, I don't even need stats for combat, dice are enough.
@@matthewmcguigan4293 There's nothing to justify, it's an option and therefore should be viable... otherwise it shouldn't be an option.
@ Yes, any time you mess with a player's agency, more often than not they get disappointed. I've seen it numerous times when limiting rules (i.e. RAW stuff that I feel is imbalanced), ones that player's built their characters around.
If you have someone who wants to be the "face" and you bypass them, you're restricting that player's agency.
The simple truth is that it's a game, the character's attributes are used as derivatives to create how good/bad they are at various tasks... social interaction within the game is one such task. So if the player sucks at being intimidating, that doesn't mean his character does too. Just like very few players can actually swing a melee weapon well, but their characters are elite warriors.
Working whilst sick, sucks 😕
Hope you feel better soon 😊
Thank you kindly.
There's a series of books that are selling really well on DrivethruRPG called ACKS II that add 100s of rules to the game and I can't imagine how unfun sitting at a table with the GM that wants to calculate the cost of feeding an army for an entire campaign sounds.
Zzzzzzzzzz
It's a target audience issue - guys playing that want domain management rules, etc. That said i'm not a huge fan of it myself for a variety of reasons.
This is a perfect job for the new AIs. Instead of having them actually DM, have them track stuff people usually don't want to have to track, and chime in when it makes sense to, only to be easily ignored or muted when they inevitably blabber on for too long about logistics.
Agreed. That's why in my economic campgain, we just used undead armies.
My man hope you get well soon and I truly hope that your channel doesn't die out, you are my last OG D&D TH-camr I watch.
Get well soon PDM! Totally agree with you here as well - my players all love combat so I use a lot of rules similar to yours to make combat encounters faster, bloodier and more dynamic. Combat should feel cinematic and deadly and not just be about slowly chipping away at a giant pile of hitpoints.
Thank you kindly.
I'm designing a game myself, Professor. I was going for kitchen sink options, but reducing downtime is a compelling point. Cutting back might be something to consider. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Totally agree with you, Prof ! We play the game to create on the fly cooperative fiction, so while playing that should be first and describing rules stuff second.
I concur.
Another great video. I'm intrigued by some of your suggestions for Init & for handling large groups. I appreciate it.
The joy being adult players is that we have experience to draw from. The problem with it is that the young people don't see it that way. Someday they will be our age and they will look back and go, I was an idiot. Great video professor.
This is the way for every single generation
Boomer comment, honestly.
The video has nothing whatsoever to do with generations of players.
It's about rules complication and getting through the rounds of battle within a reasonable timeframe.
@crimzongaming5470 You would be right, if I were a boomer. That's my parents
@boonbrown3648 no, I was definitely writing about you.
@@crimzongaming5470 Awesome, this helps the professor's ratings with the algorithm. Keep it going. Here, I'll help. You mean me?
100% right. We had someone who kept the stack of 3.5 books next to himself so he could min/max every single turn. (DM's son, took 20 min every time it came to his turn.) That's why we switched to Shadowdark. We love it, no more watching grass grow between turns. (He and his dad are gone, too.)
I am always learning new things from this channel. Thank you Professor! That "we all take our turn at the same time" totally makes sense the way you put it, even through a stuffy nose
That's an official rule in DB, which I am writing now.
great vid prof! I'll see you at PAGE. can't wait to shake you hand and thank you for your service! lol.
i too am getting over the funk. Trying to beat it before PAGE and throwing the kitchen sink at it so i don't "patient-zero" the place.
i love that you told some personal stories in this vid about the kid's table. i have two quick anecdotes of my own:
- i'm running DotMM in r/20 and trying to do RAW for the punishment of honoring the system. However moving in real space (no ToM) for roll20 is cumbersome, and positional combat with 6 players is a slog. although it really helps with environmental story telling such as marking halls and tracking space (like a good cartographer should), it's still missing a narrative edge i struggle to maintain. I'm not sure eliminating BA is my solution, but your vid gave me some things to think about.
- Regarding each table is unique to players. very true. I have one player in my homebrew game that gets math-blindness when its his turn. 3 attacks +prof+ dex + magic dmg + poison ammo + class/situation bonus makes him panic when everyone is waiting on him to add it all up. So i told him to take a note pad and pre-roll; roll twice several times (in case of ADV/DisADV) and roll up his damages off turn. If he misses, skip to the next roll. It really helps him stay in the narrative so he can have fun saying how he looks or what he might say heroically instead of staring at dice for 3 minutes.
Very much in agreement with your thoughts there. This is one of the reasons that I find the simplicity of Shadowdark so appealing. Get well soon!
I taught my kids to play in the 90's. One of them had this as a motto: Girl Scouts taught me to follow the rules. D&D taught me to make my own rules.
Hi Professor, long time viewer, first time commentor. I really am intrigued by that technique you mentioned about having all the players take their action at the same time, the entire round being finished in about 30 seconds. That could really transform combat and I'm definitely going to try that out with my groups. You always have a great perspective on games and collective story telling; thanks so much for your work!
After years of running games many different ways, much to the groaning of my players, this seems to work the best. Hope it works at our table, too.
I'm running a 7 player table right now and I tweak the rules to make things move. Sometimes too fast! We play with a 4 hour window and I'm usually only filling three, not wanting to start the next act because we won't finish it.
They pwned the much-dreaded banshee they encountered last night because they were forewarned by their guide that there were banshees in the barrow and the cleric came prepared with a Silence spell. It was glorious.
Awesome!
Another great video. Back when I played 1E AD&D and Moldvay B/X, we homebrewed all sorts of things and picked and chose rules.
I was once in a D&D game with 15 PEOPLE. You could cook a 3 course meal before your turn came around again and you say "I swing my sword."
6:08 I vaguely remember a paragraph in my 1st ed AD&D manual where it says something like, “the rules in this book are just guidelines, feel free to change them to suit your play style.”
By DM had the idea that dexterity is more important for combat than strength, so he changed the bonuses for “to hit” and damage do the dexterity bonus. When i started DMing i thought dexterity gets the axe on target but strength drives it in, so i used dexterity for the “to hit” bonus and strength for the damage.
Thank you so much for sharing that initiative rule with us (the one where everyone rolls a d20 per round, and who ever gets the highest goes first, then everyone else goes clockwise). I normally just let the players go first, unless they are ambushed, but I'm going to try that one out in my next Shadowdark game, because that sounds fun (and easy).
You get better! and Thank you!
At our table, if initiative is even needed (sometimes you know who goes first based on the story and situation), initiative is rolled as d20 + ability modifier and then we progress clockwise starting at the highest roll... and the bad guys / gm occupy the 6 o'clock slot (unless there are many of them then they occupy the 6 and 12 o'clock slot) at the table. So typically some players take their turns, then the gm, then the rest of the players. 1 move and 1 action per turn, getting an extra action per turn is only via a special ability / power (ie. a second attack due to your magic sword).
When it is a players turn I turn to them and say "ok it is your turn, what do you do, 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.." and if they do not have an answer by the time I count down from 5 then their character takes no action this turn as they are caught in indecisiveness. The wolves attacking them will not wait for them to decide what to do... After this happened a few times the players really start to make sure they are thinking about what they want to do before it gets to their turn...
I like the idea of everyone declare what your are going to do and then everyone roll at the same time... I will work that in at some point and maybe combine it with the above method. as a group "everyone think of and tell me what action your character is going to take 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1.."
Great video as always !
Great video. I've always been a fan of having initiative. Be a set score and just having the players sit in rotation so that the one to the right of the GM starts the combat and it just continues around to the end
Bonus / reactions at first blush appear to be a game system's surrender to players' inability to wait. By giving them the ability to do more things, they don't have to choose between things.
Contrast with 1e where you can either move, or attack. A Charge action is a hybrid which lets you take a x2 movement and then make one melee attack at the end, but you can only do it once per 10 rounds. Otherwise, if you want to attack, you need to start out within 1" of the enemy (a proto-5' step if you like). If you charge, you get +2 to hit but -2 to AC, and when charging against spears they deal double damage if they hit you. So, if two groups meet, there's a bit of mind-games as to which side will blow their first round moving in, or will both sides sidle up a little and hurl missiles, or who will take the plunge and charge, etc. Note too that if you want to flee at double move, you can't do it for 9 more rounds if you charge in! There's a lot of decisionmaking and counterplays and ways that equipment (weapon choice, armor type resulting in a movement rate, use of caltrops) and strategy (preparing or choosing the battlefield, knowing your escape route and having it at your back) can take advantage of player skill to influence the outcome. Heck, in 1e you can't cast a spell and move at all in the same round.
I think bonus actions and reactions are fine as long as you observe the Inverse Law of Ninjas. Which is: the fewer ninjas there are in the fight, the more powerful they each are. So, if there's one monster, even if not a boss-type monster, it gets more than one bonus action or reaction of its own. Specifically, total all the PCs, add up 2 bonus actions and 2 reactions per PC, and then split those up among all the monsters on the enemy side. A 6-man party fighting one Orc has to confront his 12 bonus actions and 12 reactions! You may not like green eggs and ham, but he's gonna give it you ya.
Also, every time a PC takes an action where he literally can't fail, the difference between his roll result and the target number needed is dealt to him in d6s of HP damage that cannot be absorbed, reduced, deflected, etc. and bypasses things like Temp HP. It's, uh, over-strain or something. This house rule encourages diversification and discourages specialization, but does not prohibit it, which leads to some hilarious outcomes later on.
Next up, and this is less a house rule and more an exhortation to the gaming public, if a piece of content (especially a short) features someone rolling a 1 or a 20, report it and give it a thumbs-down. There are 18 more results possible on a d20, and we need to see those once in a while instead of exclusively 1s and 20s.
Prowlers and Paragons lets you do anything you could do with bonus actions and reactions without slowing the game down and without requiring special specific rules for them.
Thank you for shouting out aphantasia. As someone who a couple years ago learned that I am not "normal" it was a shock to my system to learn that when people are asked to imagine something in their minds... They can actually see it.
I'm not going to hate on theater of the mind as a play style (it certainly makes set up and tear down easy). But I'm just sitting there imagining the half-orc looks exactly like my friend across the table because... That's all I've got. 😂
do you play with minis? imagining an ally is not something I ever bothered with
@@LeFlamelI definitely prefer playing with minis. I can't "picture" any monsters, scenery, or anything else in my mind.
It's gotten me into a bit of trouble when I DM because I might describe a killing blow a bit too graphically for my group, and I need to figure out some details to describe ahead of time because I can't just conjure up an imaginary place by visualizing things I've seen in real life or movies.
Spot on as always, that's why I love dungeon craft videos. Thanks for sharing how you run a combat round, I am always looking for ways to speed up combat. Keep up the great work. Hope you feel better soon.
Outstanding video!
Get well soon!!!! 🎉
Thank you kindly.
Hope you’re feeling better! God bless and we look forward to your healthy return.
Great video Prof.
"GM's job is to know what rules to use, and which rules to cut" sums up everything.
Any game is meant to be fun. The GM should not be trying to prove how well they know every rule, but how well they can facilitate their group(s) to enjoy their gameplay. It's about the players. The GM has fun having the players outwit them, enjoy the game, and look forward to the next session.
As long as the players know what the rules are, and that they are suggestions only, that's all that matters.
You mentioned not using spell slots, what do you use for casters in place of spell slots?
What do spellcasters in your game use instead of spell slots? Spell points?
I introduced zoned combat to my 5e adult players, mostly because the guy that I expected to throw a tantrum if I ever did is no longer in my group. I got all the questions: how are we going to know who fireball hits? etc. Not by counting squares, i replied, you're just going to have to trust me. The non-believers were quickly converted on how much faster it went. Finding out what people want to do at the top of the order also speeds things up, even if you decide to run it in initiative order. For my middle school club I don't bother with proficiencies, just all ability score checks. So much faster to create characters when I don't need to worry about that.
Good advice as ever. I hope you feel a lot better soon.
One other thing for the RAW stuff is that it allows things like easy convention and organized play, I've enjoyed a combo of randomess with groups of people playing adventures who don't actually know each other and with groups that become more stable with it. Pre-Covid issues, I was playing just about every night with 3-4 for AL games in different places while running my own one night and playing in 1-2 others, now it's playing in one game a friend is running due to schedule conflicts...and before, well, I could look up areas that I'd be in for work and see if there were games with open slots, and I could just bring my characters and play without worries.
With 5e, unless someone was brand new and needed a lot of help, a round wasn't that long and there were character deaths (ones outside of the upped likelihood that the Tomb of Annihalation season had with it's meat grinder that had a lot of people running adventures outside of it to try advancing enough characters to the later levels to experience the later stages of it...place had a memorial wall for organized play with like 20 leading up to Tomb, then over a hundred during it. That campaign is already infamous for being deadly for a party that's used to working together, having more randomized teams with no prior clue to what characters are there...and later whatever dregs were left for the last few parts, it becomes even more brutal.
It's a very different type of play compared to home games...
Also, 5e's bonus actions are basically a renamed version of 3.5's Swift Actions, smaller things that can be done in addition to other stuff...I'd just love for things to be slightly more consistent there for things. But it's a know your class and abilities thing.
I hope you feel better soon. I really appreciate your videos.
I may be stupid or missed the point, but what does initiative have to do with bonus actions?
I get the point that bonus actions may slow down the game, but I don't see the co-relation
My experience as someone who's played a very long 5E campaign with 4-6 players and a bit of shorter ones: yes players should be snappy with their rules and plan their turns in advance. But I like bonus actions, because without them your turn can be a massive nothing burger (say you cast one weak healing spell or your one attack fails) and then you're waiting for your turn again. If you at least have some simple bonus action you can help your friend while you do something without either preventing the other.
I personally enjoy the feeling, as a player, of taking an efficient turn that has choices. The same feeling in a deck-builder game of using every card in your hand on your turn. I feel the Bonus Action, for both players and monsters, opens up this possibility. Saying “I swing my sword” for my action may go quickly, but it’s not as satisfying. As you say, it’s just a different style of play at the end of the day
Action pools are weirdly inflexible in 5e, and not interchangable with a common action currency; let me explain: the ops-and-tactics system can use a 100 points per-round and actions have costs (like 5 per hex movement, 30 for a normal attack, 60 for a heavy attack), is the most complex and most flexible.
3.5 pathfinder’s 3 action per turn is satisfying, but only with the swift, full-round, and double-cost actions as active mechanics that are not usually well explored.
That was an awesome video! This is my favorite content from your channel. I love game design first and foremost and your videos on this subject have always been the cream of the crop. Thanks so much for the post. I especially liked how you handle the actions to speed up play. I have been in games where it took each player forever to make their moves and it was extremely dull waiting for my turn. It wouldn't have been so bad in those situations if the players at least were making their actions as fun as the Critical Role cast but that was rarely the case. I have played with DM's who kept things moving fast and that is so much more entertaining. I will be stealing that idea for my next session with my three sons. Again, great video! Thank you for posting it even as you're under the weather.
I am sorry you're not feeling well and I hope you get better soon.