Video

Making him a monk/sorcerer is genious, tbh being a dnd noob i am I never even thought of magic in dnd being portrayed as good old regen in roleplay.

I like your character builds better than the essays, glad to see you get back to them

sabretooth next time? lol

She dead on my pool til I X-Men

Hope the custody battle is going well!

hey can you do an Object show character next?

So much text much wow

You did not have to go on about the sexy bear for that long. I get it, he’s sexy, but there’s no reason to go on and on about it. Yea, people are fucked up for drawing the haunted animatronic sexy, but it is what it is. No reason to keep talking about that damn sexy bear, but you did. You kept yapping about how sexy that sexy, sexy bear is and how hot he is. Thats enough outta you mister.

Just the "Sue Me" 😂

I start campaigns at lvl 5, even for new players, but there is a caveat. I’m a strong believer in multiple session “zeros” to get to lvl 5 so the players understand the mechanics of the character and how everything interacts as well as to flesh out portions of the back story that can be used in the campaign. I use one on one sessions going from lvl 1-3 and start to introduce the characters to each other so they have some history and a reason to go one a journey. It also solidifies how the character gained their starting gear (possibly a magic item or two) and a feat that the character earns through game play. Also, I don’t use canned adventures but develop my own based on my players and years of running a table. It’s easier for me to shift on the fly vs adjust pre printed content unless I plan on using the setting again in the future.

I like starting at level 1 personally. I think it makes players more clever with how they interact with their environment since they have less class abilities. Some of the most interesting combat encounters can happen when the wizars has already run through their spell slots and has to find another way to be impactful on the battlefield. Of course, this also has to be ties with the DM giving the playets opportunities to interact with their environment

A level 1 character is NOT someone just starting out. A level 1 character is already a hero, or as the DMG says (pg 37) "even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and the hint of a greater destiny that lies before them." if you want to play a character that is "just starting out," then use a commoner stat block. There is nothing common about a level 1 PC; they are Local Heroes, meaning individuals that the local commoners have at least heard of and consider to be exceptional. Thus, a backstory that reflects that is entirely appropriate. Conversely, if you don't like being JUST (lol) an exceptional person, then go ahead and start your campaign at a higher level, but that makes it sound like you are more interested in a superhero fantasy rather than a dungeon crawl fantasy.

One of the Best Tank builds, that i played is a Paladin Bladesinger. 30 AC and with Shadowblade Smite and Booming Blade i deal a lot of damage.

I hear it a lot 'The first few levels are great because there is real tension and danger!" - which is true. But, I dunno about you, but most veteran players have wonderful characters with rich and elaborate backstories and potential. Seeing them instantly decapitated by a goblin who rolled max damage crit on their rusty shortsword is an unsatisfactory resolution to their story for _everyone_ involved.

Level 1 is horrendous, if I know we're starting at level 1 I'm basically just not making a wizard. Walking around with potentially 7-9 HP at level 1 is a fucking nightmare lmao

1:45 we just finished a campaign (my... twelfth? ish? campaign I've played in, and the first one we've actually finished) a couple months ago. It went all the way from level 1 to 14, and lasted about a year and a half. We started with 5 players, but one of them permanently dropped after a few sessions, and the other dropped for a while, but then came back to play every other week. We just started our new campaign a few weeks ago, and we started at level 6, which I think is a pretty good starting point for us, since it will also likely be a longer one.

Just so you know fighters are rare as shit, being able to attack multiple times is an insane feat. So being a level 1 fighter is when you start on the path to greatness but it comes after a long time of hard work and effort.

yeah level 3 is my preferred starting point; level 5 is only used with an experienced group and I'm planning a short game

I actually like to start my players at level 2 and then leveling them up after 2 sessions. That way they quickly get to their subclass, but can also mold their character from their team dynamic. I've seen people make characters that directly go against each other in a campaign because we started at a higher level. I do think you should skip to level 3 as fast as possible, but you should also get a feeling of your party so it feels natural to travel together for years to come

lvl 1 is my favorite lvl

Okay just cause some of us assumed you were gonna say level 17 doesn't mean you have to call us out on it

Nice editing and pacing here.

I usually start my campaigns at lvl 2 so that people who want to multiclass don’t have an unfair advantage over people who don’t want to multiclass

This guy was an idiot Don't watch his video

starting at level 3 just seems like a good in giving player the freedom to create the characters they want to play while still being easy to manage for the DM.

I've only ever had 1 campaign at level 5, and it was a lot of fun and we powerbuilt a lot

I like starting at level 1, it makes me feel like I have earned every level I get to over a campaign. … and by that I mean lvl. 4

I think you always start at level 20 and never feel any fulfillment of watching a character grow and become something greater than they were initially

I can tell you guys really picked up in essay production after this one

I think the best starting level is level 3. Even for new players, level 3 seems to work the best. you’ve got increased customization so you’re not restricting creative players while not punishing uncreative players. You’ve also got an increased power curve, which if I’ve learned anything, it’s that players love being powerful. While it is harder to learn all your abilities, if you have players willing to commit, it shouldn’t be a problem at all.

My approach to being a "Tank" in a ttrpg is done with the mindset of tanking in Overwatch 1. With niche exceptions, there's no classical "Taunt" ability like there is WoW. Tanking involves psychology and active effort, by "Making Space" for your team to perform without being g overly harassed. Your presence needs to be such a problem that the team HAS TO deal with you first. You need to be right in their face swinging without stop. Your job is to make them regret stepping up to your casters and softer targets. Forcing your enemy to look at you through the threat of defeat, and backing away with their lives. A lot of how people run dnd is "enemies always fight to the death and have nearly zero fear of defeat amd loss" which is why it's so hard to "tank" in this environment. The reason it works in games like Overwatch, is because there's real mi ds involved. When a person dives into my team to try and kill a healer or dps, and I turn around and give them a swing of the hammer, they're now fighting 2 people, one of which wasn't originally a problem, and is now only attacking them because they entered the threat zone of melee. You can force a human controlled enemy away because of the pressure you apply by dealing damage or using abilities to shove them away. I'm using Reinhardt as my example, because he's the closest to dnd we've got. Melee weapon with Cleave, a bull rush build, and massive health and armor. Forcing an enemy to suddenly fight 2 or even 3 people at once is incredibly daunting, and of you commit, you WILL be defeated. Even better, is multiple enemies where one has jumped in and got annihilated. Is their buddy gonna be dumb enough to try something they just watched fail horribly? Probably not... Anyway... there's good videos on downtown Make Space on CZcams for Overwatch. I highly recommend applying a little of that for dnd. It's helped me way more than I thought it would've initially

Best tank... high dex wizard. easy enough to build to AC 40ish in 5th and with enough spells and other options to draw serious attention.

Artificer armorers best tanks in dnd if u play em right

You really can not do a taunt in TTRPG. I say bring back a spell failed system and allow the fighter to cause a chance the enemy's spell will miss cast.

Incorrect on so many levels says GM of 40+ years. I will simply say this - any monster/NPC/Player that ignores the creature/person right in their face attacking them to strike others leaves themselves wide open for being punished very badly. This is where video games like Baldur's Gate 3 screwed the pooch and set a bad example.

Echo Knight Sentinel makes a decent tank.

I buried a device with three prongs and it's beeping

Ahhh, deep fried mic for a video essay *this'll be good*

I am playing by cleric of life and feel myself very tanky. In Underdark I stay infront and shiny as person without darkvision who attract attention of opponents by it's person charisma for diplomacy and music checks in this time our else rogue like party go to backs of opponents. I am very happy with such infront roleplay action Already converted few opponents by ceremony, also by getting new members you could get some hp hitpoints for first shots on frontline of you opponents also clerics have enough tricks to get first attention, also sanctuary spell could defocus your opponents, minor illusion could be cool for pulling I mean this is a game, look at the heart of your favourite DM so he would like to hit you!

Goombario when

I see this argument that tanking is not possible, and in my opinion, this is only true if the DM metagames. If DMs are thinking I will not attack character X because I just won't get anywhere, they very likely are making decisions based on facts that monsters wouldn't know. Unless there monster is intelligent and has observed characters to learn their abilities, they should not be making use of knowledge of character abilities. In my game, my monsters generally attack the tank because the tank presents himself first. Not only does this make sense for most monsters, it also lets my players who want to play a tank feel like their characters are making a difference, in the way they desired. As a DM, I can always make my monsters strategize to kill the PCs, but the game should not take on this type of adversarial tone, IMO

... Champion Fighter is almost Subclassless fighter. Improved crit range doesnt increase your dpr by a meaningful ammount. I made it a bit better by making Crits a lot better in my game, but still it doesnt compare to other subclasses. It is just bad, I think it may be worth a rewrite. Imrpoved Crit range is so bad in DPR tho stilk I'd take a proficiency in Animal Handling over it.

The best Tank in 5e is a Mark of Warding Dwarf Armorer Artificer Abjuration Wizard with Durable and Dwarven Fortitude. Enemies would have to burn off 630+ “HP” before even reaching the Tank’s HP, all the while delivering soft taunts and pissing off the DM.

all hail gru

Monks aren’t tanks, they’re skirmishers

D&D isn't WoW. If you want to tank go play video games. ffs

i have never played a tank but i am thinking about doing it in an upcoming campaign

What defines a tank as the military machine is speed armor and firepower they are a bad example of an rpg tank, but that's not the point.

so to be a good tank you need high health to be able to take damage. defensive abilities to not have to take the damage from the attacks. crowd control to not let those attacks happen in the first place, and protecting teammates to kill the enemy so you don't have to prevent the attacks?

we talkin bout biblically accurate gru