Thats a good balance between the two ideas. Definitely using that.

Nice, it feels like they hurried to drink that potion and in their haste some of it was spilled.

Definitely using that, great idea!

I think this is an awesome idea! Thanks for sharing!

Using it!

I try to run Stealth this way as well -- the check is made when detection is possible.

Personally, I feel this is how it should be. A stealth roll isn't needed when a player is trying to be stealthy if there's nothing around to detect them. Think of it like this: Player: "I'm going to sneak through the woods." (Rolls a successful stealth check.) DM (knowing there's nothing around for miles): "Okay. The forest doesn't know you're there!"

@@DungeonDudes The main problem with Stealth in 5e - from my perspective as a new player - is that it's extremely unclear how useful the "Hide" action is supposed to be in combat. The rules describe that it's supposed to be somewhat "realistic" and that simply hiding behind your half orc ally without moving will not give your halfling the "unseen attacker" advantage on the next attack roll - but other than those blatant cases, it seems to be completely up to DM discretion. While DM discretion can be fine, I could see this leading to lots of finicky situations at the table and potential fights over "how obscured" a character is when hiding or "how distracted" that adult dragon is by the barbarian hacking its ankles. It just seems not worth it, despite seemingly being a core feature of the Rogue.

@@Nr4747 There are loads of arguments all around the internet about this very subject. I am not even going to try and go into it here, but opinions vary wildly, and it's really something you should discuss with your group before playing a rogue. At my table, if a rogue makes a reasonable attempt at making their next attack come from a surprising place after hiding, I'll give them advantage. If they are just going to try and duck behind the same pillar/corner over and over, it's not going to fool anything that has enough intelligence to understand object permanence. But there are groups out there that do allow that, and that's OK, too. We are here because of a video about house rules, after all.

It should be done this way. Every person who has ever tried to sneak around always THOUGHT they succeeded. They never KNEW however until they got caught or didnt

Wait wait wait 1hp for each head?

@@silverpact1008 You do not specify!

I cast magic missile at 7th level and twin it....

@@larryvickers2480 You can only twin a spell that targets only one creature. Since magic missile can target multiple creatures, it can't be twinned. Same goes for spells with an AoE or spells with a range of self.

@@InviWasTaken This is rules as written, you can always allow it in your home game.

I like this a lot!!!

As do I. Interesting, I may employ this at my table.

I do a variant of this where every check has different bands of DC, where the highest return the best results, while lower bands become more mixed. An example with a History check to find out the name of a town where an event took place would be 1-5, no idea; 6-10, cryptic information like "ends with -shire or something"; 11+ I give out the name of the town they're looking for. I imagine this is very common, and it works very well. My players know this is what is happening behind the scenes too, so they feel it is less arbitrary.

Very similar to Dungeon World. 2d6: 6-: Fail and +1 exp. 7-10: Success but with cost. 11+: Unqualified success.

That sounds lame.

You beat a golden dragon with vicious mockery: "you guys are mean, i dont like you guys, i'm out of here *proceeds to leave*

Mathieu Robitaille tbh when I heard the bloodied condition I immediately remembered the sheer amount of times our party has in-fighting, and how my paper-thin half orc Druid would be ‘bloodied’ so often lol (he’s got like... 20 hp... rolling for hp sucks)

@@thatoneVoidDemon since we're on house rules, there's the average hp set in the PHB and a rule I have in my game if they don't like rolling is every level they can choose the average (on a d10 I think it's 6+CON) but if they roll they MUST take the roll. I find it helps balance it out a bunch as some like the gamble and others want to avoid it.

Skewrz my old Dm used a bit of a home brew version where if you roll under the average you get the average which makes it slightly fairer but lessens the rng of having lower health or something idk

@@cosmit4250 I used to do that in 3.x. I gave my players a choice of (assuming d8s) take 5 or roll, but if you get less than 4, you get 4. Change as appropriate for the hit dice.

Yo can we get a video fleshing out the minion rule specifically? This seems like the single most useful rule for scaling up encounters and really raising the stakes but I don’t know that I fully understand it

@@krisratliff3157 Simple enough: You have a bunch of really cool monsters that aren't the big bad. They are thematically cool and level appropriate, but fighting them is a chore. See bandits, goblins, kobolds, etc. Minions keep all those cool elements, but get 2 really important changes. Change 1: minions only have 1hp so any successful attack defeats them. Change 2: Minions never die to a failed attack or if they make a successful save, even if it would typically do damage. They keep all their other typical stats (AC, special abilities, modifiers etc). In a 1v1, you might elevate a minion to is normal stats to ensure that a fight has stakes (such as giving full health to a fleeing guard shouting for help so he isn't automatically deleted by the rogue).

haha

Mwahahaha. Rocks fall. Everybody dies.

The guy made Tomb of Horrors. He wants the DMs to know they dont need the rules.

Lvl 12 Human Druid takes the prodigy feat, expertise in medicine, maxed wisdom, drinks potion, gains 2d4 +16 hit points But at the same time, I like it

@@McGamer103 aye dedicated health potion build sounds pretty cool and you can feed your health potion to others to give them your bonus

I like it but it really doesn’t make any sense in the immersive sense.

Could always just house rule call them healing kits or something similar instead of health potions if you're worried about them breaking immersion. Magical salves that knowing how to apply them makes it more effective than rubbing it everywhere.

Fengar that makes more sense. More sense than a magical potion healing more because you know medicine lll

Roll nat 1* you mostly misses your mouth, it spills up your nose and into your eyes

​@@tbohn10cures blindness but making you blind again

​@@bramvanderklei4826 nah, it gives you such good eyesight that you can't comprehend it and get a shocked state

@@tbohn10 rolled a nat 1: in your rush you accidentally mistook your poison bottles for healing potions - lucky you mostly missed your mouth! take one point of additional damage haha

the first time I was a DM I had a guy say “Hay momma.” Trying to get a price off his horse

this is good only for experienced players as they could predict where the conversations would go, and most of the time able to deliver a good arguments when it comes to deception or persuation events. this could make the interactions more interesting. but for new players, what if they got a high roll for deception, and later giving a bad or even a contradictive arguments to npc

@@hayaku95 I think the rp should be optional under that system, if the player can come up with something really good (or laughably bad) then they have the option to entertain the group with it.

I would say as the GM if the pickup line or whatever the rp roll is for is really good I give advantage. And dis if its terrible. Certainly helps avoid that scenario

Remember, you're setting the DC in your head. You can modify it either way without the players ever knowing.

Thanks, I always hate it when what could be a 5 minute video is spread like too little butter into a twenty minute monstrosity

Also, 11:08 RIP Headphone Users

You are doing gods work.

@@elonwhatever Yeah this whole video could basically just be reduced to like, the screengrabs they have of the rules in text. And if they wanted a video it could've just been 10 minutes of them explaining each one briefly... Not really enjoying these guys because of the long-winded overly obvious explinations, and often just bad takes in general on things lmao.

Just unassuming get your players onboard with the flanking rules, like it's not the end of the world. Then suddenly, out of the corner of their eyes... The Kobold Gang

The advantage on attack rolls statistically is the same as having a +5 to a single roll. So I would stick to advantage when the flanking creatures are more than two, and add a +2 when they are exactly two.

Since we have simplified tactical movement and AoO it's too powerful even with +2 as a bonus.

Kobolds are amazing :D

@@pierluigidipietro8097 actually it's 3.325. average roll is 10.5 while average roll with advantage is 13.825. And the reason I would prefer a flat bonus over advantage is because it doesn't makes all the other sources of advantage meaningless since you can just flank.

When I DM, I can be bribed with food.

What? That's a thing? Haha

Why would you punish yourself?

I like this rule. But as I run L5R lets swap the "pint" for a full hits of sake/plum wine

For my friends everything, for my enemies The Rules!

Skill Challenges and Minions are my favourite

4E had some really cool things, it just flubbed how classes worked.

Good one

If you wanna be brutal you could amp that up and make the players roll to rummage thru their bag to see if they even find it

Paul Blank I just go with one hit and any damage roll. The players can’t see their hp anyway

I use a 2 hit rule. Or 1 if 10dmg

i call those minions cannonfodder or one hit wonders, down with one hit. i start with double the number of party members and if the party killed 3/4 of those one-hit wonders, i keep adding a number equal to the number of party members till the big bruisers are down or are now coz of the partys constitution a challenge on their own without their cannonfodder ;)

Do minions have an xp value?

@@imperiousartifact1473 since they add to the fight i think they should have some but since they are just one hit wonders the value shouldn´t be too high max 50 xp per minion. i don´t worry about xp since i GM with milestones

By this same method your DM can choose to make any type of potion either topical (1 action) or ingested (Bonus Action) depending on how they want them to be used.

Great ideas Solo, hope you don’t mind if we steal some of these! I’d say borrow but I’m not giving them back. 😊

Dungeon Class I just checked out your channel. Very nice. I subbed.

@@DungeonClass Go for it bro! Glad I can help you, help others; so we can all have great games.

THIS IS AMAZING. I love more realistic interpretations of combat. Thank you

@JoeRingo118 Barbarians do crazy damage, and even if they didn't they still take half damage from most attacks combined with a gigantic health pool and advantage on dexterity saving throws. The last thing they need is more damage.

It's basically a reskinned Dart as a ranged weapon anyway.

Isn't that a bit expensive?

@@CallenExile yeah, I have a monk PC that uses shuriken instead of darts for more ninja flavor.

That's already how the Thrown property works. "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack" (PHB 147). RAW, throwing a dagger, javelin, spear, etc all count for features like sharpshooter, for example.

@@jamessimmons9998 RAW they count as ranged attacks, but not ranged weapons

Fighters do 4 attacks at 20, 5 with feats/special weapons/certain features. So they can dispatch a group pretty fast. Using both rules might be an interesting idea.

Reminds me of rules for swarms in some systems.You know, rats, snakes, snotlings what-have-you. Could be a great way of dealing with groups of "trash mobs"

I like the idea for the careful spell. As far as Barbarian rages, a rule that you can inflict 1hp damage to yourself to keep it going

@@josephdellavecchia7828 I don't see the point of a barbarian hurting themselves to keep the rage going... mechanical, sure, but from a narrative standpoint, if the barbarian is charging at their enemy head-on and they just can't reach them in one round of combat, why would they suddenly be less angry? The way I see it, they should continue to be angry and laser-focused on that target. If they do anything that requires more thought than "CHARGE! KILL! GRAAAH!", then sure, the rage can end. Down a potion, rage ends. Hide, disengage to run away, rage ends. But if you're running full-tilt at something you want to kill? Rage should keep going even if you can't make it. It just makes sense logically.

@@SilverFoxR overall I really like your idea again I'll probably go to that instead I was just offering a different ruling

I don't understand your suggestion for the Careful Spell metamagic. " A chosen creature automatically succeeds on its saving throw against the spell." It already does, by RAW, exactly what you want it to do.

Elliott Petersen Succeeding on a saving throw doesn't necessarily eliminate a spell's effects. Especially at high levels, 'half-damage on a successful save' is extremely common.

He was looking kinda dumb with his finger and his thumb in the shape. Of an L. On his forehead.

Well years start coming and they don’t stomp coming fed of (?) rules and hit the ground running didn’t make sense not to live for fun

@@primeemperor9196 **"a DM once told me the player's gonna roll me, i ain't the biggest die in the bag"

Another idea is that, if the disguise is physical in nature, the players gain a bonus to deception checks with that faction (basically being able to use the "We've got wounded here, get out of the way" tactic)

I also cut move to half if blooded.

Or just have the weapon damage be maxed and not the sneak attack/smite dice.

There's just one problem with that. Normally when you crit you double all the dice damage, which means that if you have something like 10 dice it's a lot. Choosing only a die to max would make it feel quite underwhelming, unless I misunderstood something.

I think he means max one die, roll the rest as you normally woukd with a crit. So you still get double the dice, but only one is automatically maxed out.

i dont remember what system i played once but crists were just maximum damage+2 times the relevant modifier so you didnt have to roll nor add too much math a crit from a d8 weapon with a +2 strenght modifier would be 8+4=12 damage, it was enough to feel awesome without using much math nor breaking the game

The simplest critical is simply maximum damage, which is very close to the same value as rolling twice, so does not affect game balance. Works for rogues & paladins, avoids low damage criticals, and easy to calculate. To get the exact average, use maximum + 1 per die + any roll critical extras (like half orc savage attacker).

any other notable houserules you guys have picked up over the years?

That’s so baller!!!

I favor this rule as well, it makes it easier to handle spellcasting than the spell-slot system for me.

shouldn't... it was largely criticised because of how stupid it made monsters look. it may have made the game easier on DMs who preffer a more cinematic style of game play. but it made strickly no sense strategically for the players who wanted real battle. exemple... that ogre you fought when you were level 4 was no slouch... now because someone is his boss, he suddently lost all will to fight and lost all his endurance by suddently becoming a 1 hit point slime bag ? that creature evolved too, it didn't stay that way you know. plus your leveling up already compensated for the damage dealing, making him easier to kill. there is no need to make him even weaker by removing the only thing that made him formidable to begin with. it makes no sense for any world to have monions... removing a few HP off a creature because keeping a monster at 3 hp is useless, is a thing you can easily do... but removing 100 hp from a monster because he has a boss is strickly bullshit.

Who knew Sans' greatest weakness was Magic Missle?

more dice = more fun

@@themuch21 Yes, we loves the more dices! :)

Because certain features like barbarian criticals add one extra weapon die as opposed to weapon dice, making the greataxe better then 2H Sword for critical hits. This was intentional.

My crew has been playing this very mod for crits for 3+ years - do it!

@@smbakeresq can you elaborate, please? I'm not sure how the homebrew changes the balancing.

That does make sense.

I also use that house rule. It's also easy to explain to new players.

A "glancing hit" easy :)

It reminds me of something in Pillars of Eternity (a cRPG) that uses Grazes. So I guess you just say that hitting the AC exactly, or hitting the saving throw value exactly, means that it's a Graze, rather than just a straight hit or miss.

We use that house rule at the gaming store I play at. Personally, I actually like the idea that as long as you connect, you can do a reasonable amount of damage; however, I understand why others might disagree.

Two very good suggestions! The ganging up might be a bit too strong, but I'm definitely using that Healing Potion idea.

For mass combat, a swarm of Kobolds get's really threatening when they're all using the help or aid another action.

Savage worlds is so often brilliant, I love the gang up rule. I have no idea why I have never implemented it in D&D.

How do you handle greatswords?

this is the open-ended philosopy used in Rolemaster. It works either way, tough, and the players have to agree and accept that a wimp monster having a 1d4 dagger could slay them if he is lucky enough

@@rfjohnson69 on a crit: 2d6 + 12 + STR, and each d6 you get a 6 you can roll it again (the exploding rule is per die)

They just got to remember they can be one-shot by the most trivial monsters if they get really unlucky

It may be better to on a crit change that to have the damage fall on a geometric distribution of maximum number on a die*X~geometric(1/maximum number on die)+final roll that doesn’t get that maximum number+ dex +strength. Similar in allowing hypothetically infinite damage from a crit (makes sense for slitting a throat), and better than just adding 8+dex at the start as it forces a weapon attacker to invest in strength if they want good critical hits (strength is something you need to pull back a bow string and so forth).

Absolutely. To players they are the protagonists in this movie, and it only makes sense to give them protag benefits. When my players land a crit I ask them to describe how they do it. I have another house rule: if they fumble with a 1, they are at disadvantage until their next turn. They're caught flat footed etc. It leads to the other players moving to cover and protect each other when a fumble happens.

Andrew Kelly I like that as opposed to hurting themself or their weapon breaking. What experienced sword fighter hits themself on 5% of their cuts? And what sword has a 5% chance of break on each swing? I’m not a historian so maybe there are swords and maces that terrible but I don’t know of any. It only makes sense if your weapons are garbage.

Me 2

Yeah it really sucks when you get a low roll on a crit

I also tried to this rule, but when I Crit with a full-grown Ramorhaz (67+6d10+7) and insta-killed my barbarian; I decided it was a little over-the-top. I switched to maximum die damage plus double modifier and an added effect for physical and magic attacks.

I just picked up that d12 today. From Q Workshop? It was bigger than I expected and will be cool on the table.

I have the same d12 and couldn't think of any good way of using it. I thought about archer shots being rolled with this, and different damage calculations depending on the body parts hit. For example, extremities like the arms and legs have the least amount of damage. Chest and torso will have higher damage, and headshot is a critical. Your idea is pretty good so I'm using it.

Which is a good way to tackle it, as you are spreading you attention over two opposite foes, your guard can't be as good as normal.

Is there a functional difference between +2 to hit and -2 to enemy AC? Also, imho, ranged spellcasters/archers have an inherent advantage because of how far away they can be, and flanking as a melee buff gives melee classes an edge that they otherwise wouldn’t have. But that’s just my personal experience from my play group (who built a lot of characters for abusing gimmicks during one shots).

@@georgedenny9446 Only in description. "With the enemy flanked you find it easy to shoot into combat with your ally and score a hit." Vs. "With the enemy flanked he can't defend himself from your shot." Also keep in mind in a melee both parties are moving around, you could accidentally shoot your ally.

@@georgedenny9446 Well it could. If I understand it right. +2 to hit would give the people in melee a higher chance to hit. That's it. But with a -2 to AC (be it from having less room to move or whatever being flanked would do. Hence the DEX disadvantage) it would mean it is harder to dodge. So ranged attacks would ALSO benefit from this by attacking someone with less AC. TL;DR +2 benefits melee, -2 benefits all

I tried this. I found it meant the players rested a lot more. Encounters per day went way down. It actually had the perverse effect of them being in better average condition because they refused to continue when only moderately beat down since going down would inflict such a large penalty. And then when it did happen -- forget it, they're gonna put up a Tiny Hut and long rest, even if that is a few hours after the LAST long rest. They'll sit there and play cards all day inside of ritually cast Tiny Huts rather than travel with exhaustion. Later I made it so that the exhaustion taken on this way is relieved after a _short_ rest, and this got rid of some of the problem, but ultimately I decided that if I was going to keep this rule, the additional exhaustion would go away in a short period of time without intervention, such as ten minutes for each such level (if you drop twice, you'll have two levels for 10 minutes, then 1 level for 10 minutes, then you're good). This increases the risk from going unconscious for the duration of (generally) one combat, without wrecking the rest of the day or even forcing a short rest where one otherwise might not be taken.

Psssst, negative HP, solves the healing word issue without punishing players for getting critted.

@@mal2ksc I get what you're saying, but I have 2 counter points. 1: and most importantly, the rules for long rest explicitly state that a long rest can only be taken once every 24 hours, so it can't be spammed like that. 2: it's really not that hard to counter this kind of behaviour. The hut is not exactly a stealthy thing so it's easy to detect, which means all you have to do is go "hey, the cultists know you are there so no they have a small army surrounding your done and are just standing around you waiting" or there's the old "hey, you're not the only caster with dispell magic" if you are looking at beasts, if there is feasibly a wurm or earth elemental burry the dome. "the massive apes in an attempt to break the hut are gone now, but you are now buried under 30 boulders, once the hut goes down they cave it, partly crushing you, everyone takes 4D10 damage. Also that was a lot of noise, you won't be alone for long" I run a very intense game, once they understand how the game works New Exodus is a unforgiving place. If my players abuse the system, the system pushs back, just like in real life. I make sure to communicate this right away. And if I introduced a system similar to this one I would let them help design it. Somthing like "this is what I'm proposing. I'm willing to take some ideas, but not willing to go below -1 on all D20 rolls per down" usually I'll end up somewhere around a point of Exaustion per down, but with a CON save that has a DC of 10 + 5 per failed death save.

@@morganmarks8725 The idea of "If abusing the system, the system pushes back" was literally what Mike Mearls suggested in one of his many streams when dealing with his players, so I wholeheartedly agree. Players are allowed to abuse the system, but you're God: you can do the same, as long as it doesn't turn into a Player VS Dungeon Master situation.

They weren't spamming long rests. They were burning whole days inside Tiny Huts to wait for long rests. It was a deliberate ploy (and it worked) to counter a new mechanic they did not like with a play style I did not like. I did have them face opposition if they stopped in places with any traffic at all, but they would then backtrack to the last safe place in whatever setting they were doing, and spend all day there before resting. I hadn't really set up time pressures, so I put a second group in there which was jumping their claim. They didn't care -- the other group could take everything and they'd just start in on a new dungeon, as far as they were concerned. The point is that the new mechanic annoyed the players sufficiently for them to essentially mutiny. I eventually got "fired" for not providing the play style they desired, so I would have just accelerated that even further if I had pushed on with the unpopular exhaustion mechanic.

new criticals will only make your damages dealing players better at what they already are good at. while the monk and fighters will still be left in the dust by adding only 2 or 3 points of damage overall to their damages. its not worth it. potions... using them as a bonus action is better. as it makes potions matters, if you give your players a choice of potion or damage dealing, they will always choose the later. making the ruling not worth the trouble. it is using their action for it that stops them from doing it from the get go. not the fact it heals little. healing is healing, every points count. not to metnion you'll make your players too much unkillable if you maximise potions. flanking is a nice one, but it makes positioning a must in the strategy game and it makes for quite stupid combat where everyone just try to flank everybody. makes positionning too strong to begin with. not to mention it completely nullfies the barbarian ability reckless attacks. what good is it if the barbarian never uses it. bloodied... no just no... if you cannot describe the hits of your players, then i believe you have a problem as a DM. if you really need to give them a cue that they have hurt the creature, then tell them their sword actually start cutting across that armor or that a satisfying crack was heard when that maul hit the monster. also, hit points are not a visual representation of how badly hurt you are... it is a representation of how heroic you can still be while being badly hurt. if you need visual representation, i suggest you take the shadowrun system of hit points where you get injuries as you get hit and only certain injuries can be healed. that system is a much better system of hit points to represent something. the DMG also has the injury table you need. just adapt the system to your need. minions makes no sense whatsoever... what if your players have fought a baby dragon before... now they are 10 levels above and their abilities can already kill the same dragon. why are you even diminishing that dragon further by removing his hit points and endurance more when leveling of the game already compensated for that one ? it just makes no sense. creatures don'T suddently get weaker because another monster is their boss.

I played AD&D with my friend's dad for a couple years - they used healing paste as the non combat potion. It took time to apply to wounds and to bind with bandages, but was cost effective and healed more than a standard potion (but not a greater healing potion, but those were rare.)

Love it

I love this

Sawtooth44 I had the same thought as they were talking about it! I love this idea

My GM does something similar to this, but instead applies it to Pathfinder's mass damage. Any damage you take from mass damage leaves a scar that can't be healed without some SERIOUS healing magic. Our rogue, for example, is most likely always going to have a scar through her shoulder where she took 4x scythe damage from a flesh golem.

I really like this. I feel like adding a bunch of +x to stuff in 5E kind of gets away from its design, but adding a minor die roll feels more consistent with the rest of the 5E rules. I think for many it's easier to remember which die to roll than it is to remember a numerical bonus. I'm about to DM my first campaign and don't plan to use flanking, but imma keep this d4 idea in my back pocket for later. Thanks!

I think the +2 was to hit, no?

I think it is also more fun to the players to get to roll and extra die, even if the average is the same, there is a chance it will be higher, but not as powerful as advantage.

@@KageSama19 Yes, it is to hit, not damage.

@@stephencarmickle I've always done advantage on flanking, I feel like the +1d4(2) to hit would be more consistent and rewarding. Often I've seen people roll 2 off of a hit and their advantage roll only went up 1 point.

Interesting at what point do you let your players know the colors?

@@josephdellavecchia7828 probably 0-25% = red 26%-50% orange 51%-75% yellow 76%-100 green

This isn't a bad idea but I think I might leave out any distinctions between 50% and 100%. It _should_ take a while for the players to get a handle on how hard something will be to kill, and telling them "you've hit 25% damage" is more information than I want to divulge. Having more shades of "beat up" is useful though, so they don't blow big spells or buffed attacks on creatures that are ready to keel over. As for describing each hit -- I don't, unless I need to reveal things like resistance or immunity by saying "that didn't do as much damage as you would expect".

@@jakestavinsky3480 that is what i figured but just confirming. Thank you

I started using it just based on watching Drakenhiem live play. My players really enjoyed it. Same goes for the Bloodied rule.

@@sambobsam it makes sense that a healing potion would be static

I like the idea, but I also like that not all potions are made/brewed the same. What if it was crafted in haste and not as potent...or came from a goblin cave with not as good conditions to be making potions. Flavor perhaps?

@@trouqe If anything, it gives you a chance to create a new series of healing potions There's the core book ones, and then there's the static ones. It can be tactical (houserule), at the same time that the adventurers may have to take a risk with a poor healing potion (core book)

I think it would make since to use both. A health potion brewed by a master would be static and obviously be more expensive. One brewed by an apprentice would vary but be a cheaper option for your players when their coin purse is getting a little light.

If my math is right, that raises the average for a D10 character to 7 (6+6+6+6+6+6+7+8+9+10=70 /10=7), D8 is 5.75, D6 is 4.5, and D12 is 8.25. So that is roughly a 15% HP increase per level (not 15% total because of max HP at level 1). Not a huge jump,, but enough that you would need to take it into account. I like the idea though!

I allow the PCs to get a trainer for going up levels. It costs money (10 gp for 2nd level up to 500 gp for 10th.. which is max).. If you spend it, you get advantage on your HD roll.

I do love the idea of a dragon getting the breath weapon back when it gets bloodied. in my head, a breath weapon is a somewhat uncomfortable process for the dragon, it's basically forced vomitting, so they won't use it unless they need to. once they've hit a bad point of hp, they realise they need to use it, as these adventurers are harder than the previous ones. depending on CR, I might even lock certain abilities behind bloodied, to really ramp up the fight as it gets more and more dangerous (ie, the dragon only uses multi attack, or doesn't use legendary actions until it's bloodied, or it has lair actions UNTIL it's bloodied, to change the dynamic of the fight)

Why does it make it more valuable? Wouldn't it go from 3-18?

AlchemistGamer I usually make it so they roll as usual. If they get below the average, they take the average instead. This allows everyone to enjoy the thrill of a high HP dice roll without feeling fucked in the long term. It feels amazing to get the max but it’s not worth it at all if you get 1 additional HP.

That makes the average too high. Similar, but more fun: when the player rolls HP, the DM also rolls but in secret. Player can either choose their own roll, or instead take what the DM rolled without knowing what it is. Roll a 5 on a d6? Keep it. Roll a 2 on a d6? Take the DM's, and hope to Pelor that they didn't roll a 1.

Same, it works great

My brother-in-law and I have decided on a rule that incorporates constitution bonus into dice roll. Its convoluted, but I like the effect. Basically, the minimum roll you can be stuck with is based on your hit dice and con bonus. d6 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 1) d8 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 2) d10 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 3) d12 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 4)

Krispin Keyes I’m all for letting the dice fall, but I’m a firm believer that HP really isn’t the thing to let the die fall over. A bad roll on an ability check is funny, only getting 1 HP for levelling really fucking sucks in the long run. The player can just take the average anyway. If they’re smart they will always take the average. May as well let them roll and potentially get higher with a safety net. TL;DR The joy of getting a high roll on HP is drastically outweighed by how awful it feels to get a low one.

A former DM would boost some of the stats on boss monsters when they became bloody because that's when they get "serious" about the threat the players pose.

So you were playing Bloodborne

@@Hypercat0 never played that game, so no idea. Borrowed the mechanic from raid bosses

so, what if the do, like, 15 damage to one goblin. it means that one other goblin mysteriously die?

@@MorriganQueen451 Not mysteriously - you finish one off and awesomely combo right into the next! Think cinematically.

the other goblin die of shock

I was going to mention this as well. The +1 is easy. And if you wanted to make it nasty to get surrounded you could pick up the setup in the video and do +1 per attacker that is flanking. (+2 per attacker is a HUGE bonus and scales poorly) Another option would be +1 for flanking and +2 if you were directly behind the directin the target is facing.

I stick with the +2 because of a few reasons: I'm 3.5 ex player And in reality getting flanked can really sucks in HEMA and even the most skilled fighters really suffer if flanked I've also introduced a feat which allows you to ignore some penalties from flanking and a couple of extra bonuses

@@oliverworley5162 That's a nice idea for a feat

My reason to stick with +2 is that IMO +1 is not worth messing with. It doesn't matter as much that it's /mathematically/ more correct. Because a big part of it is going to be the perceived benefit in combat and that is going to affect players' actions. Furthermore it coincides with the same bonus as partial cover or a shield. And lastly I feel that a +1 is kind of nitpicky and splitting hairs and part of the whole design premise of 5e was to reduce the tedium of all kinds of little bonuses because they slow down combat.

There is no more "facing" in 5e. That mechanic has been completely removed, possibly to simplify play in an online environment where setting the facing on every creature is a right pain in the nads.

Doesn't seem like it.

Sergio Le Roux you do you

@@av7501 do you do

Benjamin Frost I use the critical damage mod and in one fight my Mammoth was able to kill one player (immediately revivified by cleric) and nearly another on a pair of 20s. Love it when I get to deal the big damage on occasion.

Oneshotting is rarely fun for players in my experience. Often it feels unfair. Hence why the DM should be careful with assassin/rogue type monsters. Stealthy monsters have an innate advantage from being controlled by the DM and tend to deal high burst damage. Because the DM can set up an advantageous situation very easily without the players realising they're a different beast in the hands of a DM. Caster monsters may be a little tricky to track as a DM but BOY can they wreak havoc. Ran an encounter for my party, lvl 9, recently that really had otherwise quite unshakeable party running low on hp. Greater invisibility and fireball spam turned out to be quite powerful :). Players won out in the end. Party caster had invisibility countermeasures and counterspells. Note that the powerlevel of this campaign is off the rails which means I as DM am a little more free to hit my players with the big guns. Though I'm always being aware of one-shot potential from my monsters and try pretty hard to avoid it (unless it's an NPC the players REALLY shouldn't be tangling with and said NPC is forced to demonstrate this. But that, fortunately, tends to be very rare).

That is an example of a time when you as the DM should cultivate the experience and realize that sometimes there are times when following the dice would ruin the experience, so you just ignore the natural 20 and say it was a normal hit. Of course, that is very dependent on your players and yourself, but if your players are going to get mad because of a rule that isn't a big deal, then go ahead and change the result on the die. That is why I roll behind a screen, there are times when you change the result to give the players a better story.

The thing about the oneshotting from a boss is, either it was always capable of doing that if it rolled well on damage or you didn't take the critical hit rule into account when running that encounter and selecting/designing that enemy for it. The rule wasn't at fault, you were for throwing an enemy capable of oneshotting at a group that didn't appreciate potentially being oneshot. All you really even had to do was look at the hp values for the party members, and then look at the potential damage output of the monster, and then go "oh well shit this thing could oneshot them. MAYBE I should change that, then?" A lot of the time people blame just bad luck, or homebrew not working out, but situations like this are just poor design and poorly thought out on the DM side of things and easily remedied. That said, if you do like oneshotting being a risk (I don't mind it in some contexts as long as it doesn't completely prevent characters from doing anything about it) then specifically having it be possible is also fine.

@@Xeronoia You are quite quick to judge without being fully accurate. Its not "easily remedied" without making the attacks of NPCs do mostly flat damage without rolls or being a pure saving throw spell caster. You see the problem with trying to balance an enemy based on its potential critical hit damage when you max all the critical hit damage dice, is that if you lower the regular attack damage dice low enough to where that isn't a problem you will make the damage ( in this case the first real boss like fight ) negligible if the npc does not crit. Which doesn't make a fun fight either. Alternate option? Oh sure make the hits not hit as hard but have multi-attack. But...then yo could potentially kill someone in one turn instead of just knocking them unconscious. So yet again you come to...making the damage less and ergo negligible. Also you have no frame of reference for my campaign setting. Its intended and designed and the party knows this, to be challenging and when it needs to be deadly. So TLDR: There is no right or wrong to a lot of homebrew alternate rule usage. Different things work for different campaigns and different tables of people. Me stating a problem that it has in favoring Rogues and Paladins too much and can lead to quick dropping of players by NPCs is not an inaccurate criticism of the rule. It is in fact true. Does that mean the rule is bad? No. It however was bad for my table, campaign, and players. I did think it out, the problems stated above were come to and the players wanted to try the rule out so we did for awhile, and they are the same ones that decided to revert back to normal critical hit rules. So please be less judgmental and demeaning in the future, thanks.

I have done the same for hp at levels. there is nothing worse than taking a potion or leveling up and only getting one hp.