AUS Grizzly yeah, when I say that, the players should know to turn back NOW to avoid a TPK lol

+PetLoverSpy M. Haha! I love using that. "you see a warlock performing some ritual involving blood" "I'm going to attack him head on! (barbarian)" "are you sure?" 1 perception roll later - "it seems there are many eyes peering at the warlock from the darkness" "oh, great..." Have a great day everybody, best wishes for a good year ;)

“Well, considering it is one of the holiest symbols of the church and that the cathedral is swarming with paladins, that would most likely be suicide. …Go right ahead.”

Did you know that Aus means "Suffering" in dovahzul

my DM does that too hahah

yeah, they're paid actors

Notice in commercials it always says "real people, not actors"

I've done something similar. I rolled a natural 19 and had a modifier of 17. For a total of 36. The DM rolled an opposed for a NPC and he exlaimed "NATURAL 20. So he beats you." Now I said "This is a skill check. A natural 20 doesn't mean he beats me. He needs to beat my total. This wasn't an attack roll or a saving throw."

Senpire The Critical Role Effect

Enddar I imagine a nat 20 might succeeded say lock picking and just being lucky but for something like climbing a wall it doesn’t matter if he gets a nat 20. your plus 7 against his -2 means no matter what your are doing it better than him (and faster if the dm is flexible)even if you roll bad.

Also you could just do better than him more often and have higher quality checks if you are making something. So a dc 19 too make good plate armor but higher quality if you just need too make 10 roll to make the armor

I mean, house rules may apply. At the tables my friends and I play at the d20 and its almighty natural 1s and nat 20s are the essence of fate.

^

Some of those are allowed in very specific situations

There are situations where it is wrong for the GM to say "no". There are situations where it is wrong for the GM to say "yes". There are situations where it is wrong for the Player to say "no". There are situations where it is wrong for the Player to say "yes". It is a collaborative game and that means telling the story together. If there are diffences between player and GM, I invite the other players to have a vote.

@Michael Fox I am talking about the example in the video. A character has a fucking MASSIVE passive perception and he can't notice the approaching monsters? Unless these monsters are classed into rogue, or are special monsters that have a natural +50 to stealth, there is no way a bumbling behemoth could have snuck up on that character.

So its pretty clear you've never been a DM

Your DM is the greatest human being to exist.

Player DM he's crazy

@Ash I said that because is so hard to play DM and PC. But yeah, sounds fun

I very rarely get to play cause I DM usually but my latest character is a bard that recites all of his spells in slam poetry. It is absolutely amazing and even better after ive had a few beers lol

the DM is making it up. There is NO rule for this in 5e, neither there are in 4e, 3.5, 3ed and OD&D - I don't know about first and second edition AD&D.

Theres no rule for critical failing, but a lot of people play with it because that 5% chance of royally fucking up makes every roll exciting for them. If everyone agrees with that rule, then it's fine. It's not fine to change your judgement just to further screw your players though. He already said she broke two, so he should have stuck with that.

This GM was just an idiot, really. The GM is meant to enhance the players fun, he is not playing against them.

Lara D not fair

get a new DM this one cleary has some issues.

Noble Six the spell reincarnate can change your race, but it keeps your class.

I could see it as a plot to set up an adventure.. "you open the chest and see a blinding flash. When you stand up you are a female cleric, roll for perception" and then it's either you were temporarily in someone else's head and you saw how your party could benefit from helping them, or now you have a quest t get your body back. There has to be a reason, and the fun/reward needs to outweigh the frustration for the player.

@@johnbrewington2539 if the players cool with that yeah But just yeeting the character he created because you think itd be fun is a no no

Had a DM confront my character with a god once. (Neither I nor my character knew he was a god.) After he killed my character with a messed up trap in the guise of a chess game and a bad roll on my part, he then resurrected my character and told him that he had to serve him as a cleric of his. My character said he would serve no one who hadn’t beat him in a one one one battle. Sooo. After the fight my character became a cleric and was given a hammer of returning and was forbidden to use his twin scimitars. (Translation: the DM couldn’t throw anything at the party that me and my character couldn’t handle that wouldn’t kill the rest of the party. So, he nerfed my character.) I made the best of it and really had a good time playing a cleric for the first time.

@@johnbrewington2539 this is the kinda quest that would make a really fun oneshot, though youd have to let your players know in advance. Heck, instead of randos have your players swap with eachother so that the team comp stays the same

I feel like that is too general, if a player were acting as a evil character or betrayed the party that might make the other players have a worse time, and the dm has no right in that situation to say no. I feel like something along the lines of “if someone’s actions purposefully ruin anyone else’s enjoyment of the game when it is clear it would do so. This would fit with the opening example because the player knows that fireballing and killing everyone would ruin the experience of at least 1 other player. You also have to take in to account the fact that the ruining of the experience for some people are different and someone might have their experience ruined knowingly but the action that ruined the experience was totally reasonable.

Isn’t Fire Breath only casteable once per long rest...?

Or short.

JustAnotherCommenter “Oh my Gods, the hospital’s burn ward is on fire! What tragic irony?!” “Fear not, I’m a hero!” *Uses fire breath on the hospital* “Okay, the hospital is on fire even more, now what?” *thinks about it for a while* “That’s a good question, I didn’t think about that.”

Actually, the one time he didn't use his fire breath was in a hospital post dragon attack.

Inquisitor Thomas technically controlled burnoffs can be used to fight fires by destroying the fuel so the bad fire cant use it lol.

My one counter point is I once had an edgelord in my group who specifically tried to Rob/Cheat/kill the other party members who I said "no" to a lot and his response was always... "WTF WHY NOT!?!?" I would have sucked it up and dealt with it if not for the fact that at Session Zero I specifically laid out the rules of, and I quote, "You can't attack/rob/frame another player for murder and attempt to turn them in just to get the bounty money and leave them for dead in a dungeon (long story, which is why I decided to put this rule in) for no good reason, I will not accept it and if you want to you can sit out this campaign and we can run an alternate with another DM so we can all play together. To which they all agreed yet this guy continuously tried to go back on the agreement. But yeah, other than that I agree with your point 100%.

@@zacharylekfield3594 I know this is a late response, but I want to know something. What if the character has a reason, something that wouldn't be able to immediately noticed. Like a secret growing distrust, dislike or disgust in another player character, tracked in say a journal that no one else happened to read. I feel like a low build up into a (well kept secret) burning hatred, would be more than enough reason to do such things. It could start with slight dislike turning into a strong distain for another character, all tracked over time in something carried on the character. That way it would be in character, and technically within your rules... Correct?

@@casey8898 Yeah, I would be more Ok if it happened over a longer period of time but back when I wrote this we were playing a lot of one shots so there were usually just one or two sessions with certain PCs. Also the player has really mellowed out since then, so I think he got it out of his system.

either that or you're running lovecraft

@@kiracomfortinghishomie8351 finally someone said it

Well, a natural 20, maybe the dagger got lodged between his tooth and gums, and caused minor irritation for a while.

The only thing a natural 20 with a rubber knife should do is double the amount of damage dice used for its damage with some fluff text.

@@alibouk227 2 x 0 = 0, and my comment was the fluff text - but I agree somewhat with your sentiment. Some players seem to think if they roll a natural 20 they should achieve miracles. The reverse is DM's who think you should roll for really basic easy to do stuff. (eg. jumping a 5 foot wide crevice. seriously. that's a single step, dude, why you making me role?)

@@bskec2177 the only time miracles should be allowed is when it's possible but it's a 0.00001% chance ordeal like somehow dodging a series of lava splashes and such or somehow managing to lie to someone or hiding behind a door as the entire bbeg cast walks through the room when they open said door and you're right besides them behind said door. Things like ability checks when it's sensible.

One of the only games I've ever played was with my sibling and their partner. I was the DM and sib wanted to hug other character to heal them. Nat 20. Healed 1 point of damage. They argued that with a nat 20 it should be more. I think I might have given in and made it 2 or something. Wasn't sure if they were right or not, but these replies convinced me I was maybe even too generous.

Ken McNutt II. I think it's a fair ruling but I would give the player a chance to explain in his backstory why he would have that steed....because maybe he can write a good story about how his god placed this nightmare under his control or blessed him with it.

His explanation was that "It looks cool".

Then yeah the answer is no until he can come up with a valid in-character/story based reason

A Nightmare does seem pretty unreasonable of the LG character to summon, but maybe you should talk to the player about it maybe being a divine version of that creature... like a redeemed creature or something. It could still be black, but maybe now the fire of it's mane is radiant gold, or silvery blue, instead of hellfire. Call it a Divine Charger or something. Then maybe both parties can be happy.

I'll talk to him and let you know his answer.

that is basicalyl rewarding their creativity.

That's the best way to roleplay, having fun together.

One shooting something strong due to teamwork isn't necessarily bad. It rewards it, which feels awesome.

Buuuut.. you shouldn't know the stats of a yeti

Doesn't matter if they don't knew the stats of a Yeti. They didn't make their character very perceptive to spot hiding Yeti's. But that is still a thing you should be able to do.

You miss the point. I meant. If the dm rolled or decided the stat for the yet was higher than the perception the players rolled. Then it fails. That's how the game works. Obviously if you mean making a perceptive character should mean you have higher chance of seeing stuff and not everything should sneak up on You, yes that's fair. But if the situation happens and your roll misses what the yeti rolled. Then you fail, that's the rules and if it isn't that's the dm's rules. If the dm and their rulings don't gel with you let them know and work it out, but to fail something your character is good at and then complain because you're good at, nd you should never fail it.. that isn't a valid argument.

Thats what passive perception is for.

I had an issue with one of my players and checking for traps. She told me that her character was permanently on guard and always looking around, however she made her rogue's wisdom low and her passive perception suffered. I had to tell her that unless she outwardly says she is taking a look, that I will be using her passive, especially in low threat areas like in town, but on the other hand, in situations like a dangerous area like a dungeon crawl, I'll double check with her as to what her character is doing before continuing with what happens next, even using investigation (which was much higher anyway) if she her character is going super in depth in her serch. I don't directly make any mention of traps, and some times theres other stuff going on in the area, so far it seems to be a better middle ground than just punishing the player despite the character in the story knowing better.

I would let him do it. All he needs is some iron, some brass, a chain, some casings for the watch, a piece of clear quartz, some gears, a watch dial plate and oh yeah, a scroll of stop time at the 9th level translated onto the surface of the dial plate by a wizard capable of casting the spell. By the time he can do that, a wizard character of the same level could do the time stop spell. Turn his inane invention ideas into quests for rare and wondrous materials and he'll have a great time and so will you. Adapt his ideas for inventions to the rules, don't make exceptions outside of the rules for his inventions and don't punish him for being inventive or enthusiastic either.

For added fun, ask him to tell you how he intends to build the thing. "How do you mean to make a watch that can stop time?" if he has a good enough idea, roll with it. If he can't do it, try to give him something to guide him to learn how to do it in the future. "You can't do it yet, you need some other ingredient" is a lot better than a flat "you can't do it yet".

I have this problem a lot.. and the best solution I had is to say "save it for the game." If they want to make something, let them think it out themselves over the week before the game, then roleplay their own attempts to make it and provide npcs that would give them a general idea of what they need for it. Sometimes, players just want to vent all their ideas and saying yes or no every day to a character really starts to wear on how you as a gm feel about that character. But that's my suggestion... tell them to think over their own ideas and save up the ones they really want for talking about on game day.

Pretty sure the artificer class explicitly spells out what level of spell they can craft based on their level in the artificer class. It sounds like your player hasn't bothered to learn what his class can actually do and is operating in a false paradigm of just begging you as the GM for things instead of figuring out solutions to his goals on his own with the resources the game rules provide him. I don't know enough about you and your players to say whether you as the GM gave him the idea that only you have any say in that - I would advise you to seriously examine whether you have, but if you're not the problem definitely have a discussion with the player about these things. Giving your players special cases like that is actually incredibly disempowering and if that's something you normally do, you should stop. It puts them in a position where begging you for things matters far more to their success than using their own heads to come up with their own solutions and ultimately that's actually worse for them.

I've had similar... let's be polite and call them "issues" with some players. Personally, I've found that with very little forewarning, I can generally creatively explain how something "like that" would "have to work" in the world I'm running. I treat the whole concept of running a game very similar to generating the "operating system environment" before I even start adding in politics, conflicts, stories, etc... so the "how" part of literally anything can be "engineered" right there. In this case, (the artificer and the time-stopping watch)... There's enough of "the basics" in the game system to explain "how" and that it's just outside of his scope as an artificer. Just add in that part "yet". This is one of my favorite words and tracks for such situations. It leaves the metaphoric door open just enough for some in-game antics and a potential "side quest" or "sub plot" for the character in question to be able to "make some progress" with his "pet project". AND so what it's a 9th level device... I'd wager an artifact capable of that kind of power is going to be expensive to build, so while you're working on it, think of a "pretty long list" of materials and values he's going to "need" in the process of creating this thing. Then as time goes by, he can "find" some of the things on the "loot-rounds" of adventuring, and beg, barter, borrow, steal, or otherwise figure out "just how the hell to find one of those" on his own. It adds depth to the Role Play, and you get to avoid the dreaded two-letter word... some of the time. On some things, getting just plain ridiculous is something I like to cover in a good old-fashioned "session zero". This is a formative discussion so the players can "get on the same page" of "Adventuring-101" as the GM. This is D&D, not "Looney Tunes". If Looney Tunes is what you're looking for, you're welcome to head on down the hall and see if Bugs Bunny is standing around looking for the rest of his class... thank you. AT THE SAME TIME, during session zero, you (GM) should spend a little time "fishing" your Players to find out what sort of campaign they WANT to play. It does no game much good at all for a GM (or the Players, honestly) to decide there's a BIG FAT RED LINE across the table, and it's all out war between the two sides. That said, sometimes, it's difficult to understand quite exactly what level of concept someone else is even visualizing. SO it's highly advisable, even if you're a hard core "Theater of the Mind" type, to use some models and visual aids, diagrams are great for engineering stuff, especially the kinds of machinations that might qualify as artificer-works. Don't be afraid to open up to some ideas, or take some of his "more insane" rambling projects and break them down into smaller, "more digestible" bits for him to work on... Every grand machine is actually nothing more than a collection of smaller machines, designed to work together. Just don't forget to ROLE PLAY it. :o)

Just a point re: PCs hassling you for free gear beyond their level's allotment - my games go a *lot* smoother when I just give PCs access to NPC artificers to commission bespoke magic items. When you establish that your group will get the items they need and the budget their level is balanced for without forcing them to jump through hoops for it your players can stop worrying all the time about money and get back to the gameplay. It's just a better situation for everybody.

not for me: if cookies are free they ain't good.

If you really feel that way. The difference of philosophy here, I think, is that I play at levels where power comes from the synergies you as a player build between all of your parts, not just from a single powerful trait or item. When a random table or the GM hand you something you didn't customize in any way, that *is* "free." The real work is in using your own ingenuity to put all the pieces together into something better than just a sum of parts, and for that you need to have access to customized gear. Since there aren't very hard or consistent rules for farming gold either, that's just one more thing that I would rather not sweat over since it's always going to be something that was handed to me, not that I actually accomplished myself without good luck or a handout. I am absolutely not *ever* interested in kissing the GM's ass hoping to be thrown a treat; I am only interested in accomplishing things within an objective set of rules that apply to everybody equally.

Did gramma ever charge you for those fresh choco chip cookies? No. Because she's gramma and the best. And those cookies were the second best.

MrCompassionate01 yeah like replacing a guard's arm with their dick

Absolutely though I'd phrase it differently than just a no .In your example you can point out to him there are mechanics for grappling and subduing a character that your gonna attempt to escape from

I belive that you cant really say no, you can really only remind the dm that you can control your on charachter or say that thats dose not make scense or that it goes against the ruels. And if it is really bad you can say no by leaving

Did you watch the video? He actually basically said that, in the very video you're commenting on.

@@itsaUSBline Typical KZfaq comment. Either a meme, a trolling post, or someone who's only watched 30% of the video. The internet has gone to shit

@@gellertszabo4697 so hes just shit at balancing encounters and improvising. You bend rules when you feel forced to not because you fucking feel like it.

I was thinking the same thing.

Never even knew he called himself that until this

clericofchaos1 not everyone plays passive perception. I know my group doesnt

I agree if I'm playing Edward the aware with a, A rogue expertizes in Perception and the observant feat for a 28 passive perception, please don't shit on my character specialization by telling me trolls sneak up on me. HOWEVER, I don't think that's the example being used here. i think this is more a situation of Edgar the Edgier with his decent passive perception of 16 ge snuck up on and being a shit about it.

@@Den-lt2mc HAHAHA thats just the asshole passive perception. Talked to a friend who dm'd a game, and there was a player who did exactly that, it really made it fucking hell for the DM to work the narrative, because whenever they went to do something, the player was pointing his passive out.. for example "you walk into the temple", the player would be like "28 passive perception!!!" and interrupting. Usually the DM keeps a note of the passive perceptions and if someone were to get close enough to a trap, they would have to make some sort of check, either a dodge, or perception to see if they notice it (as being closer would increase the chance of detection).

@@marcar9marcar972 yeah, but some people do and it shouldn't be ignored.

I think the thing was that something larger was at play like they were a special type of yeti or something and the players just didn't know yet or like this patch of yetis was special. idk if not i kinda agree with you.

doombybbr I've seen a lot of dm's use passive perception unless it's specified that you're looking for traps. regardless that's the joy of dnd, no right/wrong way to play, just what works for the group.

You walk into a room and * rolls dice * ...there aren't any traps. * poker face *

Katie Katie my favorite thing to do to players sometimes when they think they're gonna beat the GM at meta. Funny thing is after 10 minutes of questions and figuring out ways to actively perceive, a high roll shows there actually aren't any. Because what happens, happens.

Katie Katie I had a group do that once, so then I started having the enemy wizards cast invisibility on them. That's right you don't "see" any traps.

+OMGUKILLKENNY2 OH GOD THAT'S GENIUS!

I have never heats more vise words. Respect From here

This

Bottom line is, DM has final say. Objecting is fine, but DM has final say. Whether or not you want to play with that DM is up to you. Whether or not your character successfully attacks the bbeg is up to the DM, no matter what the dice say. On the other hand, whether or not you punch said DM in the face is completely up to you.

@@jakeand9020 My DM is using discord. Discord grants DM immunity to blunt force. :(

@@MrSpazbomb On the up side, that also prevents the inevitable assault charges counter attack.

Tech Mean well the guy puts hours and hours of his time to set up a game that people will play for usually 4 hours if that guy doesn't deserve some respect then why would anyone ever want to dm

So that their players enjoy the game? If not, just write a story so that things go the way you want.

@@hellsgameroom3560 Doesn't give the DM a right to be a complete asshole still.

Not if you are the dm Dm is the master

@@TVMAN1997 the dm has absolute control, if you don't like something they did, simply pull them away at a later time, and talk to them. D&d is mostly talking and communicating between members, including the DM. If they don't try to communicate nicely to you, then you are free to leave.

I think with the yeti example he was saying something more along the lines of someone cast invisibility on them or something. something to make them able to sneak up on them, not ignoring their abilities.

Right. You should never invalidate your players abilities just for the sake of a good story. In some cases where it makes sense to some degree, I have bent the rules, but never in a way that would be harmful. If I ran the yeti session, I'd have my players sleeping heavily from alcohol, getting drugged, or even exhaustion. Rather than the players missing out on perception entirely, I'd give them rolls to see if they could wake up. if none of them passed, they might get closer or something, but if one of them passed, they could wake up the other party members. The end result is the same, the yeti's got a surprise round on the players; if they rolled high enough, or thought strategically, the players may actually get an even footing or even a surprise round on the yeti's. Tactics > Rolls, the idea is to set up a situation that wouldn't normally happen, not to kill my players. Why are the players exhausted? because I never told them they needed to sleep, so they adventured for 30 hours or so without resting. Who drugged their drink? surely not that suspicious girl the picked up a few miles back. I'm always very generous with my players, but I do bend the rules sometimes if it's appropriate. if you don't want immersion, go play a board game. Have a great day everybody, best wishes ;)

I recall there being a rule about losing a level when you change alignment. So that would also motivate them to play nice.

she rolled a natural 1... the famous fumble. You know that shit hit the fan when this 1 appear.

If the player tried kicking the molotov towards the enemys I would just say "the bottle bursts sending flame in a *blank* radius igniting the player due to its rag burning down a lot after the first kick"

Thank god, at least somebody thinks the same as me! Some DMs I deal with just love assuming that characters are braindead idiots. "Did you put your armor on before leaving the tavern?" Of course, I put my armor on, you dimwit, why would I leave it in the tavern?!

well on any normal role i would choose the riskier option, but it appears they are using the critical fails house rule, and she rolled a nat 1, in which case she does something awful either hurting herself or another, or something like dropping or damaging the weapon etc etc... so no she does not choose the safe option by proxy on a nat 1

@discoandherpes as has been discussed multiple times in this thread, the punishment is for a nat one not a failure to assert which way they were curving, not saying is just the thing the dm used to explain the actions of the nat one

ikr, i play pathfinder in school between classes and one day i made the mistake of letting them continue without me; but no one except me fully understands all my character's abilities so i came back and they were all like "rest in pieces". s2.quickmeme.com/img/98/9896626080a965b554efc7e02f7ea1a74b18b344e87751190829f990c3a33e07.jpg i then proceeded to turn what pitiful turn of events they suggested happened into swiss cheese. not just from a rules perspective but also a logical perspective. i should have mentioned sooner that our DM wants us all dead real bad but i call him on the shit he pulls most of the time.

Gregore Candalez True but if your players are saying "No" to your ruling as DM for arbitrary reasons, the game can screech to a halt. I agree that player agency is incredibly important, but if you let arbitrary disagreement with your ruling stop the game then, again, your game is going to screech to a halt. There's a huge difference between politely reminding the DM of rules he/she may have forgotten and just outright saying "No that didn't happen." One is confrontational, the other is calm and far more pleasant.

had a “you can do nothing about it” session just yesterday, DM dragged on a premonition vision none of us could break out of, played my character for me, said about 8 no’s to each of us before breaking off the vision. Complete waste of time & not fun at all, he described it as something supposed to make us scared but i was not at all immersed, neither was my character even though he kept saying “you scream in fear” (no i fucking don’t i’m not a fucking wuss)

Like you're mom

The character rolled a natural one, it was a consequence of a critical failure.

XP to Level 3 With all due respect, you just claimed that you didn't allow it, because you had to show the players who was running the game. That is not a consequence of a nat 1, that is a consequence of a dm getting a hard on for the ability to rule 0. Forgetting to mention one minor detail does not equate for throwing a knife at an ally, when common sense dictates that when provided the ability to throw away from the ally, you do so.

There's no such thing lol.

To be fair, combat happens quickly so in a situation where a PC wanted to pull off a trickshot, they could have panicked or not considered what consequences would be brought up by throwing it one way or another. Perfectly reasonable call by a DM that plays with fumbles (I personally do not play with nat 1 fumbles because a 5% chance for an epic hero to flounder around at any given instance is a huuuge immersion breaker).

I do the same thing. If a player performs an action and doesn't detail the action then it is left to the DM. Since it's his world. Also in combat situations you are rushing and adrenalin is pumping. You can not think of every possible action in a few seconds. It's like people watching MMA or boxing talking about what they would do. Get into that situation and lets see.

Perhaps they became a bard due to some... Spell or whatever...

There is actually an example I can give about paladins where the DM can force you to change your class depending how you play it

+Luanro no longer applies in 5e - classes aren't alignement locked anymore

Thomas Riley true, but, it still says in the 5e description for paladins, if they break there oaths depending on there deity, they must repent in some way, or the DM has the right to change your class, not straight away ofc, but eventually? Sure

Well, if the Player won the wrath of a powerful NPC (Say a 20th level wizard) that wizard could cast polymorph and follow up with a permanency spell. Of course, that is a very specific sequence and requires a 17-20th level caster (Permanency spell was homebrewed and a 9th level spell)

I meeean they cooooould. It's their game they can do whatever they want. Plus feats are optional rules so who says that a DM has to use them anyways? If your DM is already using optional rules, then why couldn't they come up with their own homebrew content in their own game.

I Mean most RPG books I've read say DM's are final arbiter on the rules, so if they say something happens, then it happens it doesn't matter what the rules say, now doing that is a dick thing to do and would most likely resort in players leaving, but if that's what he wants to happen, it happens

I've changed peoples characters, twice. With the Reincarnation Spell... it lead to many good times! :D

DMs are able to change your character weather you like it or not. My favorite example is the lawful paladin/cleric played as a murderhobo, your homicidal tendencies do not mesh with your lawful good god, eventually you will fall from grace and loose your divine abilities. you played your character in a way that was not conducive to the facts you layed out, now you cant use magic or your divine abilities and I might force you to go in your sheet and change your alignment. thats just an obvious one. and of course you have to realize that beyond that the dm is not wrong nor will he ever be to you. you can pose it as a question "wouldnt my quick draw account for that" but if he still says no then thats the way it is, because even wizards understands that their rules are only a suggestion and the dms word is the only rules that stand at the end of the day.

The picture at 6:18 is from a D&D show called Critical Role where the host literally introduces themselves as "a bunch of nerdy ass voice actors playing Dungeons and Dragons" Quit being mean on the internet lol

Good job Leland for completely missing the joke lmao

Alternategaming, role Perception. *_Natural 1_* You completely miss the joke

*_Qwerty Master_* oh I get it. Some dude named Leland was being mean to the op about calling people “nerdy ass voice actors”. So I tried informing Leland about CR and he must’ve removed his post since he learned about this new information. I wasn’t explaining the op’s joke. I must’ve rolled a high intimidation check or something. I’ll use luck for that perception check btw

Alternategaming Oohhh, now it makes sense. You knew about CR so I was wondering why you called him mean. Thank you for the clarification

Blurry Bunny at moments like those you should just walk out of the campaign if it doesn’t look like things will get better.

Yea. It's like. Ofc course my character goes and picks up my weapon. Why would my character not pick up my weapons for fuck sake.

Worst rule of 5e : DM is always right. no they are not if this was me id have asked if you collected your axes befor leaving the cave

ocadioan The spell Reincarnation is what changes the race and stuff. Not the DM. It literally says it in the spell

1- Passive percep is a mechanic. If the players dont ask to see traps, THEN THEY GET THE CONSEQUENCES. As a dm you need to give them a proper feeling of danger. Warning them before they even enter the dungeon maybe via signs or words from a npc is the way to do it. But they if dont heed those warnings then its their doing. if they the feat and ect then ya they would see the traps and such. f they have high passive they would notice something is off. ~ 2- The dm might of allowed it as it fitted in the world or seemed fun. but if its being abused or broken through meta they have the right to take player to the side and warn them. If they keep doing this we will have to sort it and if a player goes OH YEA IN MY BACKSTORY MY RENTS WERE ASSASSINS SO I KNOW THIS out of the blue the dm has all the right to say well i wasnt told this so. Lets have a talk after the session but rn you wouldn't know this . 3- Players can sometimes keep things from the dm.

@@wearybrit7103 1. That is active perception, the one you roll for. Passive is, as the name suggest, something that is done passively all the time. Unless you want that character to start every scene and combat round by shouting "Passive!", then I suggest you treat passive as it it was written(a way for the DM to see if a surprise hits the group without the group rolling any dices). 2. As mentioned in the original post. This should have been cleared up in session 0. I have never seen anyone get abilities based on backstory, and suddenly pulling out backstory to fit the issue is pretty blatantly an attempt at cheesing the system. 3. Again, see 2.

@@ocadioan Man arent you a sour puss.

@@wearybrit7103 I know. How downright outrageous of me to want the DM to be upfront with changing fundamental mechanics of the game at session 0. I mean, it isn't like players negatively react to being nerfed mid-game and start to see it more as a DM vs player narrative than a cooperative gameplay.

Henrique Kenzo I am perfectly ok with all of that and still would like to kill the king...

Craig Croney Okie dokie! Good luck!

don't need all of that really. numbers would be more than enough. or even say 'and they hang you'

The dm could shove literal gods in your face to fight you, and you couldnt do anything about it really, because 1. They're gods. 2. He's the dm. You will most likely lose unless you manage to escape, but he could do that, it's just a matter of circumstances

Preston Garvey if that’s your excuse for fucking with the players as a DM, then you’re just playing out a power fantasy and shouldn’t be a DM.

@@xXSCDTXx Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you can't. That's literally the ethics of power - the DM *can* do whatever the hell they want. However, we (the good ones) won't. Everyone argued the literal definition of power here, and the unfortunate reality for people here is that the DM is the omnipotent god of that universe. The restrictions are self-imposed - I would never tell my players what their characters do in this situation, just the result of their actions and what responses those elicit. Good DMs don't.

Jay Reese the thing is, I don’t think the DM should see themselves as “omnipotent god of the universe” we ought to see ourselves as “omnipotent storytellers.” Our purpose is to moderate, not control. We are their to provide a setting for our players to play in and make story moments. The moment you consider yourself a god is the moment you’ve gone too far and need to quit having a power trip.

Just like any book. The authors could very well act as god, but should they? No. Let the dice roll where they may. If want to be philosophical, the true gods and controllers of D&D are the dice. They decide whether something happens. Of course, you as a DM have to make calls on whether certain things can or will happen, but I’d say we take a moderator role.

I had a human rogue who break out of his prison cell with his nails, and when the guard came in to see what happened I locked him in my cell. Other guard was passing by and my character had no chance 1v1 so I told the guard that the other guard was using his magic to swap our looks, then the guard asked me the other's guard birthdate, I told him a random date and the DM asked me to roll a d100>95 and that shit worked.

Like luring a hellhound out of a house with a pepperoni on a fishing pole? I had the idea and he allowed it and I rolled 20. Those are the best DMs, when they sometimes allow stupid shit. It's more fun that way.

Jeffrey *thr*

Annoyng Ruler aditected player detected

Jeffrey Xxexexexeeexxxexxexx xe

No. I once had a player who had a really bad attitude, and was making the game really dreadful to all the other players. She was a Sorcerer that attacked everything that she shouldn't, and whenever she fucked up, the players were used as meatshields. So i cursed her. She killed some gnolls that were already surrendered, so i sent an entire village of headhunters after her. The players knew it right away, so they made her turn herself up. She was judged, plead guilty, and cursed buy the god of monsters. Whenever she cast a spell, she would recieve damage, and she couldn't recover every spell slot from a long rest. She learned how to manage that, and once I saw she wasn't gonna play like that anymore, I made an adventure to remove the curse. Simple as that

Thank you, I'm glad someone said this.

this is also how I TPK book reading rules lawyers

@@Xenibalt bro, its yeti. Dont tell me a fucking T-Rex can sneak up on me and then killing me for knowing T-Rex cant possibly roll higher than my passive perception

@@maaax5092 in thick snow and knowing where you are, yes it can

Thank you Sheogorath, very cool

@@Xenibalt You're a bad DM, thanks for outing yourself. Learn the rules or at least be grateful to those who did.

Fimdir Dae it’s his character bond.

Emperor Mittens you just describe the Wish spell

DM: "Sure." _rolls a 20_ DM: "Your attempts to intimidate it go largely unnoticed. A woman and her child near you look uncomfortable and confused by your actions."

*rolls a 20* Intimidated, the universe deletes dnd rules. Your roll becomes worthless.

Wtf? Killing a player without a fight? Without any chance to save himself? Just because he was going to blow up 2 thermal detonators? There are a thousand ways to solve that situation without ruining the game. As a pc I would rather die than being saved like this

Mr. Crab yea but if they didn’t specify what they do their fault It’s like saying I go through the tunnel in the dark and you roll badly and trip But after the player says NO I WALKED SLOWLY

Not technically... Look, don't take it the worst way possible, here. I normally give players PLENTY of agency... but as the GM, I don't even bother playing God. I even tell Him what to do... AND that's the bottom line. So when worse gets to worse (and I've had Players actively try to break the game) I've never been above turning a PC into a gerbil. Yes, it pissed the guy off, and he was practically ballistic when the entire rest of the party decided to "buy in" on it. BUT it taught him a valuable lesson. RESPECT THE GAME. Now, I don't necessarily recommend it... certainly not as the "go-to" solution to PC difficulty. AND normally, I'm a stalwart believer in both "The rule of cool" and "the rule of funny"... Gods in my worlds tend to love fools... But in the very first chapter of the very first edition of AD&D's DMG, it states specifically, "Never EVER let the rules get in the way of the game."... AND if the rules aren't allowed to get in the way of the game, one Player sure as hell isn't allowed to either. Otherwise, sometimes, it's a good reminder to Players to be a little extra careful regarding "calling actions" and "acting in character"... AND it's just good practice to pay attention and be specific if you don't want things to go poorly in your adventuring. This isn't so much a problem with kids... BUT it's been my experience that adults usually try to employ plots and loopholes to as much as they can get by with, so blindly assuming someone is using the SMARTEST ever maneuver doesn't work either... Sorry, but if you want a "called shot" to have lethal effects (something I consistently allow) then you take the modifiers, call it clearly, and accept that it can also be employed against PC's... once the cat's out of that bag. :o)

There is a certain point though when as a DM you cross the line and end up ruining the partys fun because you want things to go your way, seen to many times DMs create homebrew shit and then end up not even trying to get rid of obvious loopholes. Constantly saying NO without being creative about it for example just asking them to roll and make it an impossible roll "that simple" the game doesnt feel like a random fucking god has just gone fuck you and it'll end up with the fun being taken away and your party saying fuck this im not playing anymore and your left crying in the corner patting your figures that are now useless because no one wants to adventure with you at the helm.

gnarth d'arkanen Excuse me dude, I have nothing to say against your point, but for future comments, please stop capitalizing the "and" or "but". It's actually just annoying to read that way even though your comment wasn't that bad. Have a good one.

i mean turning into said race/class as a curse or something makes sense actually.

Really? That sounds lame. We are running that and our cleric just got super high and wandered off so we tied him to a tree because he casted inflict wounds on a bunny rabbit and hit it for like 50 points of damage lol there was nothing but a puddle.... haha

Well, to be fair, there's a different in being charmed by magic and being charmed by a organic effect. The book do not clarifies that and your DM can play with it. In fact, as a Half Elf, you are immune to being sleep... but by magic. So keep that in mind.

Its good you did this, but ultimately if your players don't at least sort of play along with the story they really aren't there to play D&D are they?

That mean that bandit logically slashes his left arm. The point is that he attacking his arm...

Everything has a back. Its the back of the front kek

Umm Satan himself maybe? XD

Asmodious. Duh.

Menry Yami he was explaining how improv works, not a scenario in D&D. In improv you are meant to roll with what you are given, in D&D it is different.

Klespyrian it was a crit fail

@@marcar9marcar972 And crit fails are one of the dumbest house rules in existence. *eyeroll* That doesn't excuse shitty DMing

Good.