That was perfect

Shut yo Mouf,...................what im just talking bout Web DM

He's never had to perform a charisma check. Others perform the checks when they talk to him.

Nice way of putting it!

This is the single nerdiest thing I've ever read

That's not very nerdy at all. Would you call your grandfather a nerd for giving you some wisdom he learned over the years? If you want actual nerd shit try reddit

Balance is key. It's easy to put off pleasure seeking forever, and never get around to taking time to feel good

@@Leto_0 "Hedonism is gay" - Nerds

The Maxim of Action.

@@270z would go the maxim of maximum

Or the reaction of action

I wonder if since most new players have been introduced to DND by the internet, they get stories of a DM asking for an intelligence check to open the tavern door. A 1 is rolled, and their character dies in a humiliating way.

@@kylethomas9130 I think it has layers of variables, and that is probably one of them. I think the biggest thing is the unfamiliarity of the situation. Here they are, presumably the only new player and in most cases unacquainted with most the party IRL, and they know that the DM is the proprietor of the narrative and rules. They just want to not mess up and try to get along with everyone, so they make sure they are doing everything correctly, i.e; Asking if they can do literally everything they want to do. It's mostly harmless, and most people fall out of the habit after a handful of sessions.

@@clarenceyax8117 the nearest I get is asking which stat/skill do I roll for a desired task. Another variable could be DMs being spacrce with description. DM: okay you enter the tavern. PC: okay. DM:... PC:.... DM: ... PC: I sit on an empty chair? DM: it eats you, was a mimic, roll new character.

@@kylethomas9130 Not to take the conversation off course, but personally, when the session is getting into its 4th or even 5th hour, my descriptions will start to go to the way side out of exhaustion, so those sort of questions are very nice and encouraged from me. However, I will say that it's usually experienced players that will ask such questions as, "How big is the room?", "What is the material used for the walls and floors?", "Where is the chandelier in conjunction with the markings on the floor?", etc. So if you're a new player and you're asking those questions, then that's good.

@@clarenceyax8117 that's understandable, I would expect experience to dictate asking better questions, as opposed to building a crematorium in every village because that one time with the necromancer. There's a lot of bad habits that could be chalked up to "one time a DM/PC did x" and they've adjusted behavior.

I'd add to this by saying that players should be declaring actions by expressing an intention (what they're trying to do) and an approach (how they're trying to do it). It's the approach that DMs are going to use to decide if the action needs rules to adjudicate and if so what rules. Player: "I take a runup and try to jump the chasm." DM: "Okay, make a STR (Athletics) check." Player: "I throw my grappling hook and try to swing over the chasm." DM: ""Okay, make a DEX (Acrobatics) check." Player: "I seduce the chasm!" DM: "Its not into you." Player: "I'm just going to use the bridge you said was there when you described the cavern." DM: "Okay, you're on the other side."

Cool of you to say so!

Excellent point. Related to the 'yes, but...' tactic

Why give up hp damage? That to me seems even more implausible than the stunt. Any successful hit should do damage AND, not damage OR, I think. Plus a guaranteed fall seems a bit harsh, how about the chance to fall on a failed athletics check or something? Otherwise I do very much agree with risk and sometimes trade to allow for actions not supported by the rules system. Although the very fact that this is debatable is a failing of the system of the game being played, and is why I don't play d&d or pathfinder anymore. They are too restrictive, or perhaps limited as written, rather.

@@bharl7226 You'd essentially be nullifying one of the Beholder's most powerful features. Absent some feature of your own that allows something like a called shot (ie. the Battlemaster's Trip and Disarm maneuvers), the closest analogy in the rules is the default disarming rules that require you sacrifice damage for the desired effect. There are also some pretty obvious knock-on consequences should your players get the idea that attacking an opponent's eye(s) is something they can do without cost. One of the most common unintended consequences of the RoC is exactly this: you allow something once because it seems cool and all of a sudden the players are using it in every fight. Which is why I'd require a "throw caution to the wind" kind of attempt that does not allow for any attempt to save oneself from falling and trades HP damage for the special effect: the PCs _sole focus_ needs to be on getting that eye out of commission otherwise it's a no-go.

I would allow that at my table, but I wouldn't be the one to say it outloud. I hope my players would be able to verbalize it first. Out of game, my players are more relaxed and come up with weird ideas about combat (we work together at a hardware store), and I try to push them to be more Inspired by the rules rather than Hindered by the rules. Also, don't forget about Obeying The Laws Of Comedy. That beholder, now enraged, hits a minion with Flesh To Stone, who then falls onto another minion with horrible, squishy results. The PC sees this and cheers, and a piece of the minion's spleen falls into his mouth. "Make a CON save DC 12 or spend the next 1d3 rounds puking." Most of my games can easily feature a Bruce Campbell/Evil Dead level of goofy horror.

@@paulcoy9060 Yeah, the player would have to suggest it. Be careful of that Rule of Comedy though: it can do just as much damage to your game as the Rule of Cool. Remember, funny isn't always fun.

I always forget about exhaustion as a mechanic. Having it become a resource will be soo much better as a balance mechanic.

It can be used for so many things! -bleeding out -sicknesses -curses -gritty death saves -result for a crit fail -and so much more!

Shorts are pants!!!

@@WebDM touche ;)

@@WebDM I disagree with this statement.

And turn this on kzfaq.info/get/bejne/as-Whdadrb7MZ4U.html

WisdomThumbs I’ve gone 14 years of my life not knowing about that webcomic. Thank you for correcting my foolish ways!!😄

Wait what. Polymorph or wildshape? Also what lvl is that druid hahaha

@@IDAWKYI I think I meant Wildshape.

@@IDAWKYI he's a rouge, man... Knowing all the names of druid spells is meta gaming -_- ... He's just staying in character xP

I may just borrow this, sounds fun!

Yeah, I love the opposed roll mechanic with a decent chance it'll fail or v succeed.

Well, this is the thing. An awesome, Hail-Mary moment where "it's crazy, but it just might work" is great. A table full of players who start thinking, "It's crazy, therefore the DM _has_ to let it work." is a disaster.

@@nickwilliams8302 well said

Nick Williams, absolutely!

one thing I've wanted to try out is letting players do more elaborate plans or actions in combat, but having to devote 2 or 3 rounds to the action to pull it off, such as climb on to a dragon and stab it while on its back. The first round action would be used to climb on and get a firm hand hold, then after that on your next turn you can attack away.

This is actually in the DMG for D&D 5th Edition as well; page 242 "Success at a Cost": When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. And then it lists some examples of how you could implement that. Obviously as a DM you could always decide to widen that margin beyond just "1 or 2", and increase the complication accordingly.

This.

Honestly, if they do stuff like that often enough that it's abused, just talk to your players after the game, or before the next. Tell them; _"Hey guys, I love when you try crazy shit, and I don't mind rule-of-cooling that, but if you're going to then turn that into some sort of legal precedent and abuse that ruling in future, I'm going to have to stop doing it."_

I'm curious as to who you're referring to. The dozen or so shows I keep up with (i have a job where i can listen to podcasts) it's nor a huge issue, that i can recall.

Realistically cool

Awesome strategy!

Judo I think...

Man am I glad I discovered you guys. Seriously you two a huge source of valuable info and inspiration and I absolutely love your intros.

Thanks Creed!!!

So foster players in a vanilla environment so I don't fuck other dms crunch grit fests? Isn't that what pathfinder was for

You guys need to play Shadowrun with these personas. Play Wiz Kid Elf Poser Folk Rockers. Annoy the other players to the point of insanity. One of the char should live at home. The Char's Mom sells Avon & Vitamins. She is allways recruiting.

😎

Sam Jackson's favorite role :) Great little movie

I’m always frank and earnest with the ladies. I’m frank in chicago and earnest in new york.

Being Legolas in any of those film is not okay. His player clearly knew the DM was unfaithful to his wife and blackmailed the DM to rule in his favor

Nothing like that rogue 4/bard 4 that’s proficient in everything and expertise in like 7 or 8 skills...lol

Realizes DM asked for Str check

@@chasebalcziunas4289 you need a bit more than rogue 4 bard 4 to gain proficiency in all skills, that's only like 4 from rogue and 3 from bard. You need some knowledge cleric, warlock 3 with the beguiling influence invocation, and the skilled feat to get all of them, I know because I've used this NPC in one of my games lol

Evan Gregory if you take a half elf sage, scout rogue subclass, the skilled feat and 3 levels of lore bard, you get the same thing without being MAD. Just have to be very particular in the order you pick the skills. I know this because I’ve played one.

Yep. As a basic rule of thumb, impossible actions don't _get_ a roll. They just fail. Because that's what "impossible" _means._

Ah. Forgot to say. This is all in Rolemaster.

Yes, this is a sometimes difficult but important lesson!

Yes! We've been watching a lot lately and we're so happy to work with them! Great show!

Heck yeah! Show us a pic on social media!!

I would also like to add that I did spoil this player a bit by allowing him to go with a character build that gave him around 25 Ac before the party had even reached level 10 so barely anything could hit him for a while. So I do take fault in how he acted in some way.

Yes, Adam's perspective is interesting! Right there with you on the love for Unsleeping City and Dimension 20. We think it's really well done and we're thrilled to rep them!

I spent half the video thinking he had cats ears on before I suddenly made the connection to the intro.

@@lowaimnobrain Yes, and there are certainly ways GMs can undermine that by using the rule too much. However, the GMs who use the rule of cool are probably going to apply similar logic to the world itself, where even goblins can also do mechanically invalid stuff. In my experience, GMs who use the rule of cool often spice their world with similar shenanigans.

@@endlessxaura You've nailed it. Every table, sometimes every session, is a bit different, and as GM you have to "read the room". A couple of tables I ran were after-work groups, and there were days where clearly the need for an emotional pick-me-up was more pressing than absolute rules-fidelity. With experience - of the game, and of the players - you get a sense of when and how to bend the rules without breaking the game.

@@lowaimnobrain - Claiming that the 'rule of cool' is somehow equal to 'allowing anything without downside/possibility of loss' is ridiculous. If someone wants to use a skill or ability to try something that's not quite how it works RAW, you can invoke the rule of cool and say; _"Sure I'll allow that, roll [insert relevant skill or DC check or whatever]"._ Like, something of the top of my head, suppose the party need to get someone on top of a 10' obstacle, and the Druid says; "I want to use my Thorn Whip and have it lash me and yank me on top of the obstacle." That's not how the spell works, technically. But you could say; "Sure, that's silly, go ahead and roll Acrobatics to see if you can manage that." And if they roll below whatever you decided the DC was, you can say: "Oof, nope. The vine wraps around your ankle, thorns painful pierce your skin as it pulls you off balance and smacks you against the obstacle. You take [roll 1d6] 4 damage, and another 2 as you fall back down on the ground." See how that's already created a comedic moment players can laugh about, and gives opportunities for people to roleplay on further. Consider how much more interesting that sequence is than the other option; "No Druid, you can't, that's not how the spell works." ...and that's it. Wow, such fun. 🤷‍♀️ Rule of cool also isn't unlimited. You can still say no. If instead the party is standing by a 50' ravine and the Druid says: "I want to make a Thorn Whip vine on the other side of the ravine and get pulled across." You can obviously just say no. That's taking things too far. Long story short, I want to reward creative thinking at my table. Even if that means you slightly bend the rules, or ignore them for a sec. Because when you don't allow it, people will stop trying, they'll not come up with crazy stunts because they'll (rightfully) think: "Nah, the DM is going to not allow it anyway." And then nobody does cool shit. I'd rather have a campaign where people can tell stories about Legolas skating down the stairs on a shield while shooting 3 orcs with his bow, as opposed to a very neat and dull campaign where at the end you can only say: "Good job everyone, we stuck to the RAW for the whole campaign. Aren't we great."

We love it but... You're not wrong

We call them Pimp Points, you get one for every Nat 20. You can burn them for rerolls or Bonus Mod. If you want to do something wacky, spend them in increments of five'

Yes!