#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
Disclaimer: I am not able to watch the video.
Rule #1: DM preference, I incline against banning spells altogether and more towards nerfing them so that they still serve their purpose but in a less powerful way (ie. inflict wounds deals 6d4 damage rather than 3d10 so it does more damage than guiding bolt but not so much that it steals the spotlight from other damage-dealers.)
Rule #2: I fail to see the point of this one. I’m against it.
Rule #3: I think I know what this one is about. “I aim for his eyes” is not valid in games like mine, as it is always assumed that you are aiming for the most vital target that is possible to hit.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
All the below is my opinion on the concepts on reading it, and nothing more. I am also not doing all the most precise math below for point 3. But color me not impressed (and grouchy tonight...very grouchy)
On the first point, Shield Can you get ridiculous AC's with this? Yes. But it is a limited resource with spell slots and reactions. A first level dip into any class only gets you 2 shields a day. If someone is optimizing for that, the DM probably isn't throwing enough encounters in a day. Hexblade warlock level one dip is only 1 slot a short rest, and if you are saving it for shield...well, sounds like you are short encounters again. impacts Bladesingers and EK's tremendously in a negative way. I have used and DM'ed with this spell in play; it's hardly overpowered if you have a reasonable amount of encounters OR a fight that lasts more than a couple of rounds. I'd ban counterspell before this, and I wouldn't ban that either. Listening to Treatmonks problem isn't the spell; its the encounters aren't frequent enough to make the choice of using or not using the sheild spell an important one. And if I am burning a 3rd level slot for shield...well that's just a bad day.
On the second point This is to prevent a mage tank unless you are an EK or Bladesinger (to a limited point). It might preserve the flavor of old D&D, but that isn't interesting. If we are worried about every mage wearing a chain shirt, please note that Mage Armor is more effective until you get to heavy armors. And Mage armor + Dex is better in most cases anyway it equates half-plate, except your dex isn't bound by the armor. This seems to be a flavor point, and really restricts choice. When you are dealing with magical equipment yes the AC starts jumping, but I'm sorry encounter design and the monsters can fix this. They can use magical equipment too. Finally; his idea of fantasy may not align with others.
The third point is the worst though. We already have this with sharpshooter and great weapon master, which reduces the value of those feats, and personally I already think both are overpowered now (more sharpshooter than GWM). Monks can get way overpowered, getting a +12-15 (assuming dex damage bonus) on two strikes after 5th level. Moon druids with multi attack also gets to be problematic (some forms have 3 attacks as the attack action). At later levels, I already have to boost the health of brute style monsters to make fights challenging, so this just magnifies that problem because of the existing sharpshooters. A bladesinger with this, also hits in the same range of +12-15 per attack without GFB.
Where this is really bad, is in my experience, you get to the point that AC doesn't scale as fast as player's attack bonuses so at a certain tipping point, this is an always on, and a DM will just add health to the monster so it doesn't die in a round. A a 5th level party of four, each with two attacks against a single Barbed Devil (CR 5, 110 HP) and an AC 15, could wipe it out in 1 round just on the bonus damage. Assuming d8 weapons on a perfect streak, that's 8d8 (32 avg ish) + 14*8 (112) for 144 damage ,max. That is unlikely of course, but on 50% missing its 72, and on 25% its 36. Normally (assumping no Sharpshooter or GWM) its only 64 damage (4*8 = 32) meaning 64 damage max on a perfect run, 32 on a 50% missing, and 16 on 25% miss. 4 level 5s are against a single CR is a hard enounter normally...but not with Treatmonks idea. Again, I think his encounter design probably needs work because his table sound broken to me.
What really bugs me, is that he goes for player fantasy on point #2 for armor, and then ignores it for small characters suddenly hitting like half-orcs. Sword and board fighters in my fantasy eye shouldn't be out doing a Greataxe. But empowering sword and board damage to the same levels, so now we have high damage and high armor...isn't this part of the complaint on the mage and sheild spell? He ignores the shield master feat for his shield users for defensives.
Of course, he could have solved his issues with not using two optional rules: 1. Multiclass (no dips) or 2. feats (no sharpshooter/gwm). He'd get the same effect for his table.
Yeah... no. I agree with the others. Never going to use these rules.
Other things aside, this is yet another set of houserules that nerfs many things, but not the dreaded Hexblade dip (besides losing the Shield spell) for Paladins. And other powergaming builds like Sorlocks are still pretty much possible, albeit with lower AC.
And on top of that, these houserules succeed at making racial armor proficiencies completeley and utterly useless. Martials cannot use them because their class already gives them armor proficiencies, and with these houserules, spellcasters cannot use them either, because they cannot cast spells while wearing that armor unless they... already have armor proficiies from their class.
Oh, and it is ridiculous how he calls a cleric's spellcasting weak. This makes me really wonder how well he actually understands the game he is talking about in his video. Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians and Banishment are among the best spells of their levels. Clerics fall of at higher levels, that is true. But in tier 1 and 2, they are pretty much awesome.
´The power attack rules are nonsensical too. Without feats there already is no reason whatsoever to use a twohanded weapon over sword and board due to how powerful Dueling is compared to Great Weapon Fighting, feats give heavy weapons a niche with GWM - and he takes that niche away completely. Only the heavy polearms have some remaining use due to reach and Polearm Master. And Moon Druids don't really need power attacks either.
Treatmonk's House Rules are for his table, and his table does not match mine is for sure.
It's worth noting by "fixing" D&D he means fixing it optimization-wise. Like, in terms of fixing it for people for run hyper-optimized builds. I mean, he does run games for patrons and I assume his patrons are probably into optimized-builds (can you blame them). He does admit in the follow-up that that doesn't match most tables. So keep that in mind, because I am likely never going to ever use any of these rules.
But assuming that your table does indeed follow treatmonk's tables (a series of very optimized one-shots). Generally I think his fixes are fine but they sort of take a sledgehammer approach. My guess is that he thinks it's better to overnerf things than not nerf them enough, and that eventually he'll smooth these out through playtesting. Going to list the part of Treatmonk's reasoning that i most agree with, and then my own thoughts.
First one is... okay. His problem is that shield is way too overpowered compared to the other first level spells, breaks bonded accuracy, and he wants to make positioning more important. I think it's a overreaction banning it, a nerf is probably better, but I guess it doesn't mess with anything. Maybe it's a slight buff to magic missile but not really cause most enemies don't have spellcasting much less the shield spell.
Second one is a bit better. His problem for reference is that going 1 Fighter rest Caster is just way too good, but that's just a issue in running one-shots (terrible level progression doesn't matter). I think it goes a little too far, allowing certain sources of armor proficiency such as through feats is balanced and allows for that "War Mage" fantasy a lot of people have. Races that have armor prof. also need some form of compensation.
Third one is, well it makes everything viable at the cost of two-handed STR weapons. It just means you aren't forced to run GWM/SS in order to have a "optimized" build, frees up a feat. Reminder, this is for hyper-optimized tables, for those tables this actually doesn't provide any damage boost at all in terms of overall party damage. GWM & PAM/SS & CBE is still way more damage. As for my thoughts? I think if you go through with this two-handed weapons need to be buffed, cause now they need to compete with PAM (superior damage), Dueling + Shield (superior defense), and CBE (DEX is superior than STR).
Yeah honestly I would probably have just nerfed Shield, GWM & SS. Maybe at most I'd limit multiclassing proficiencies, but even then might not.
Edit: Honestly the biggest thing here is just that these HB rules are designed for his table, which consists of a bunch of hyper-optimized one-shots. He definitely should have emphasized that more. This isn't some miracle fix all balance issues, nor is it fixing all major balance issues, just all balance issues he experiences in his one particular type of game he hosts.
It's worth noting by "fixing" D&D he means fixing it optimization-wise. Like, in terms of fixing it for people for run hyper-optimized builds.
So you mean the opposite of “fixing.” (What’s that called again?🤔)
I should have proofread that sentence. What I meant to say:
It's worth noting by "fixing" D&D he means fixing it from the perspective of optimization. Removing the most "must-have" options to allow for more unique builds is the idea of these fixes.
Edit: As I said, this is a fix for a very specific type of problem that just doesn't exist in my table (players forcing themselves to grab certain feats/multiclasses/etc to be optimal, see the D&D dudes one-shot as a prime example of this "issue"). I'm not going to defend Treatmonk's house rules any more than I currently have in these two videos. He has videos for that and I don't personally have any investment in said house rules cause again, none of the issues presented apply to my specific table.
Hate it. I think a lot of people have a misconception about the strength of Shield because it's so often misused.
Where people go wrong is that a lot of DMs will tell you what an enemy's total was (e.g- "the orc got a 21 to hit") which means the target knows whether the +5 from Shield will turn a hit into a miss or not, but this isn't how it's supposed to work; all you're supposed to know is that you were hit, not by how much. In other words, the DM shouldn't ask players "does a 21 hit you?" but instead ask the player for their AC then so "you were hit", so when they choose to use Shield it's a gamble (might not be enough to make a difference).
There may be an argument for disallowing Shield on some kinds of exploitative builds, i.e- full casters that somehow have both Shield on top of a really high base AC. IMO the spell is intended for casters with light armour or Mage Armor as their base protection, so they need to be able to boost it.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
This one I don't get; the whole point of vocal only spells is that you don't need a free hand to use them.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Hate it. I think a lot of people have a misconception about the strength of Shield because it's so often misused.
Where people go wrong is that a lot of DMs will tell you what an enemy's total was (e.g- "the orc got a 21 to hit") which means the target knows whether the +5 from Shield will turn a hit into a miss or not, but this isn't how it's supposed to work; all you're supposed to know is that you were hit, not by how much. In other words, the DM shouldn't ask players "does a 21 hit you?" but instead ask the player for their AC then so "you were hit", so when they choose to use Shield it's a gamble (might not be enough to make a difference).
I disagree with this, both as a player and as a DM I prefer giving the exact number. The issue many people overlook with forcing that Shield gamble is that the probability of the Shield spell actually being successfull heavily depends on the base AC, which means it is straight up unfair to casters with lower AC. If a character has a very high base AC to begin with, monsters are unlikely to exceed that AC by 5 or more with their attack rolls, meaning if that character gets "hit" the Shield spell will be an almost guaranteed success. On the other hand, if a character's base AC is very low, there is a higher chance that an attack that "hits" him exceeds his AC by 5 or more, causing a Shield spell to be wasted. Giving them the exact number streamlines combat a lot (especially when there are other characters who have abilities that allow them to know the attack roll) and makes things fair for all Shield users, as they all know if their Shield spell is going to succeed or not.
Of course there are many ways I as a DM can challenge Shield-spamming characters. Adding a spellcaster or two means they now have to choose between burning their reaction on Shield or on a Counterspell attempt. Increasing the encounter's difficulty and the number of encounters means they are more starved of resources and will feel the cost of each and every slot they use on Shield. Using skirmishing monsters like fast flyers, monks or rogue-like NPCs in an encounter means they have to choose between using their reaction on Shield or an opportunity attack. Blasting them with a breath weapon means they have to decide between using Absorb Elements and Shield. And so forth.
I disagree with this, both as a player and as a DM I prefer giving the exact number. [snip] Giving them the exact number streamlines combat a lot (especially when there are other characters who have abilities that allow them to know the attack roll)
I should probably clarify, I'm talking about the total specifically; I've nothing against the DM revealing the base d20 roll as necessary (or as standard if they prefer) for College of Lore Bards, Lucky and similar abilities that respond to the dice roll itself, as these imply that the base rolls are not actually intended to be secret.
A knowledgeable player can still metagame if they know roughly what the attack bonus is already, but I usually consider guessing that (along with a target's AC) part of the game, plus a DM can always give enemies bonuses to prevent metagaming (so even a player who memorised all the standard monster stat blocks can't know for sure what stats an enemy has without some hits and/or misses).
Also as I said, if a player has Shield on top of a high base AC then there may be an argument to exclude it for them on a case-by-case basis. A Battle Smith for example is clearly intended to have solid AC plus Shield, but they're half casters so it's less of a problem than say a Fighter 1/Sorcerer N build designed specifically to be near impossible to hit.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Of course there are many ways I as a DM can challenge Shield-spamming characters. Adding a spellcaster or two means they now have to choose between burning their reaction on Shield or on a Counterspell attempt. Increasing the encounter's difficulty and the number of encounters means they are more starved of resources and will feel the cost of each and every slot they use on Shield. Using skirmishing monsters like fast flyers, monks or rogue-like NPCs in an encounter means they have to choose between using their reaction on Shield or an opportunity attack. Blasting them with a breath weapon means they have to decide between using Absorb Elements and Shield. And so forth.
This was my point; Encounter design and frequency really make shield a non-issue. Is it overpowered? No, it is a magical effect that is intended to break bounded accuracy, at a cost of a reaction and a spell slot. And Semako is dead on correct on the examples. I've played a Bladesinger in melee, and had a ridiculous AC. And yet, when dragons, or casters came up, the need to save the reaction for the right action was critical, so sometimes you had to roll with the punches (or whatever). At later levels, there are even better options.
But even without spell casters, if you have hidden opponents (advantage can go a long way) or just large numbers that last for more than a round, you're going to run out of spell slots you want to use for shield. There is a point above on the meta knowledge with "Does a 21 hit you?" but in my current games when it happens, the smarter ones just switch tactics, and are designed to handle it. Surround the caster and use the help action, use a spell that forces a save, etc, or just focus on a softer target and just worry about counterspelling the fireball from the caster.
1. Do none of his NPCs use Saving Throw spells? Or lead with a Attack to burn the PC's reaction & then Fireball the party since they can't Counterspell? How many reactions & spell slots are the players willing to burn on casting Shield every round?
2. Just no. Again, more spells that target various saves, like say... not Str or Con? I get the buff to Concentration saves is nice, but what happens when they cast Hold Person, especially upcast to get the entire party with one casting? No one is proficient in Wis saves? So sad, too bad! But you look very impressive with your 28 AC.
3. You need to replace those features in feats, and as others have said, +hit scales faster than AC, so it's eventually free damage.
And if the players are such powergaming min-maxers, then why aren't they running into min-maxed teams of NPCs? Taking on bigger threats? It's not that the players are coming up with creative tactics on the spot in response to what he's throwing at them, so it makes sense that other adventuring parties, mercenaries, etc would have similar preparation & plans, as well as ways to get around them.
Seriously, if Fighter1/Caster X is all it takes to defeat your NPCs... the problem isn't the players. It's that your NPCs are not casting Heat Metal & then kiting the players. Or bring a pile of mooks who know Shocking Grasp.
You know I said I wasn't going to defend treatmonk's video but i'll make another post on the subject because a lot of you are missing the context.
Treatmonk's fixes aren't designed to fix balance issues. He's treatmonk, he judges his builds on the actual DMG 6-8 encounters nonsense and hosts one-shots for his patrons who all probably watch his videos. I highly doubt he hasn't learnt how to make a encounter by now.
These rules are designed to remove the most overpowered options so that people can make more unique builds. If the end goal is not "my party is balanced" then the third rule would not be there and this would be a far longer list of homebrew rules.
The intent, again, is to allow for the a biggest variety of hyperoptimized builds by removing the must-haves checklist. Look again at what those rules target: 1. Overreliance on the Shield spell (as opposed to things like cover or Defensive Duelist), 2. 1 Fighter Rest Wizard type builds (probably went too far here in my opinion), 3. GWM/SS builds (tell me the last time you saw a "min-max" fighter without either one of these feats that wasn't going for a tank build).
I'm not going to say they are great house rules for all of D&D. They are great houserules for his table and suit his purpose. They are certainly not a great fix for D&D balance issues or any table that doesn't care about this sort of thing (likely a large majority of tables).
But #1 wouldn't be a thing (or "hyperoptimized") if he wasn't going all-in on attack rolls / Magic Missile in very few, very short fights. So as odd as it may sound, it seems like he hasn't learned how to make a encounter by now. Or at least not encounters for the types of people he's running games for. Shield is not only not overpowered, but completely useless against ability checks, saving throws, social encounters, puzzles, or fights that last more rounds than the number of spell slots you're willing to use casting Shield. So it seems like he rarely if ever uses those things in his adventures. Slow the fight down, lower the DPR, and see if PCs are still casting Shield after all thier 1st & 2nd level spell slots are gone on the 2nd or 3rd fight today.
Having the bad guys use non Str / Con saving throws also covers #2. If the players don't have a good Int save, Feeblemind them (assuming the PCs are of a level where having the BBEG casting a 8th level spell isn't ridiculous). You're now a Fighter 1 / Drool Factory X! Hold Person, Charm Person, and so on... One base casting of Slow should give the entire party of PCs a migraine. Anyone who fails that save becomes the target for all the attack rolls later in the turn.
If that aspect of GWM/SS is a problem, the solution definitely isn't to just give it to everyone. It's to replace that aspect of those two feats with something else. Given how it seems the fights are going pretty fast by the need for rule #1, lowering the damage output would help deal with the issues behind both house rules.
He's house ruling to cover problems he, not the RAW, created. (And badly, at that.)
You know I said I wasn't going to defend treatmonk's video but i'll make another post on the subject because a lot of you are missing the context.
Treatmonk's fixes aren't designed to fix balance issues. He's treatmonk, he judges his builds on the actual DMG 6-8 encounters nonsense and hosts one-shots for his patrons who all probably watch his videos. I highly doubt he hasn't learnt how to make a encounter by now.
These rules are designed to remove the most overpowered options so that people can make more unique builds. If the end goal is not "my party is balanced" then the third rule would not be there and this would be a far longer list of homebrew rules.
The intent, again, is to allow for the a biggest variety of hyperoptimized builds by removing the must-haves checklist. Look again at what those rules target: 1. Overreliance on the Shield spell (as opposed to things like cover or Defensive Duelist), 2. 1 Fighter Rest Wizard type builds (probably went too far here in my opinion), 3. GWM/SS builds (tell me the last time you saw a "min-max" fighter without either one of these feats that wasn't going for a tank build).
I'm not going to say they are great house rules for all of D&D. They are great houserules for his table and suit his purpose. They are certainly not a great fix for D&D balance issues or any table that doesn't care about this sort of thing (likely a large majority of tables).
No, I got the context, and I understand the perspective you bring. But the context from the OP was "what do I think of the rules?"
I think the rules would be terrible for any table I play at. I disagree with his conclusions that these are great, and I discussed why. Do I have players that are hyper-optimized? Yep, and encounter design was the fix for play, and they had fun.
Your table experience is different, and so your mileage may vary. However, when you (Treatmonk rather) go around with a public video titled "Fix D&D with 3 simple house rules" I expect something that actually is useful in a general sense. Am I biased to my table? Yep. And as I said, he'd get the same net effect if he banished feats and multiclassing. No dipping, no must have feats, no armor issues that impact his fantasy perspective. Easy to remember. And probably less fun. I am well aware of his work, and have read his guides and I understand he has some biases, and that his tables tend to come from crunchier places. But not every table does. So he calling these three as good generic fixes...I just disagree.
As several others have pointed out, if you want to "Fix D&D" the places he lists, aren't where I (or they) would start. And you summed up my opinion perfectly:
Edit: Honestly the biggest thing here is just that these HB rules are designed for his table, which consists of a bunch of hyper-optimized one-shots. He definitely should have emphasized that more. This isn't some miracle fix all balance issues, nor is it fixing all major balance issues, just all balance issues he experiences in his one particular type of game he hosts.
Also, he contradicts himself in the video. He bans Shield & semi-bans Fighter 1 / Wizard X because they lead to non-iconic builds, but then gives everyone GWM so they can make non-iconic builds. Sounds like he's had too many people at his table having the wrong kind of fun, and he's not going to let them get away with it anymore.
Hate it. I think a lot of people have a misconception about the strength of Shield because it's so often misused.
Where people go wrong is that a lot of DMs will tell you what an enemy's total was (e.g- "the orc got a 21 to hit") which means the target knows whether the +5 from Shield will turn a hit into a miss or not, but this isn't how it's supposed to work; all you're supposed to know is that you were hit, not by how much.
Why not? You don't think a character can tell when they get hit with a glancing blow that shield would be able to deflect, and when they get skewered in the gut in a way that no spell can stop?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hate it. I think a lot of people have a misconception about the strength of Shield because it's so often misused.
Where people go wrong is that a lot of DMs will tell you what an enemy's total was (e.g- "the orc got a 21 to hit") which means the target knows whether the +5 from Shield will turn a hit into a miss or not, but this isn't how it's supposed to work; all you're supposed to know is that you were hit, not by how much.
Why not? You don't think a character can tell when they get hit with a glancing blow that shield would be able to deflect, and when they get skewered in the gut in a way that no spell can stop?
Then describe it that way, but not "the orc rolled X in total." which is Y over your AC, so you *know* if Shield will make a difference. So yes, Shield should save me from "He barely gets a glancing blow to make contact." and not "He hit you solidly, as if he knew how you'd react before he even swung.", but what about "The blow lands well enough that you'll feel it in the morning."? Is that a +5 or +6 over my AC? Is casting Shield a waste of a spell slot & my reaction, or will it deflect the massive axe coming at my head & save me a dozen hit points?
And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects. So you can't just go "I cast Shield & deflect that sword attack." because when you start slinging the mojo is when they decide to come at you from a different angle with another weapon. And even that may just be a distraction from the original swing, and so on. The attack roll is really about how much the attacker has (or hasn't) out-maneuvered the defender. So maybe the better description is "The orc has managed to get a strike past your web of defenses, do you have any last second reactions?" Then you cast Shield, or not, and if yes, then the GM describes if the spell was successful or not. Maybe the force was enough to move the spear off course & you hear the tip buzz past the side of your head, or maybe thier aim stays true, and your shoulder gets split like a piece of firewood. But you have to make that call before you know how sure the outcome is, not after.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
#1: Shield Spell is BANNED
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
Disclaimer: I am not able to watch the video.
Rule #1: DM preference, I incline against banning spells altogether and more towards nerfing them so that they still serve their purpose but in a less powerful way (ie. inflict wounds deals 6d4 damage rather than 3d10 so it does more damage than guiding bolt but not so much that it steals the spotlight from other damage-dealers.)
Rule #2: I fail to see the point of this one. I’m against it.
Rule #3: I think I know what this one is about. “I aim for his eyes” is not valid in games like mine, as it is always assumed that you are aiming for the most vital target that is possible to hit.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
All the below is my opinion on the concepts on reading it, and nothing more. I am also not doing all the most precise math below for point 3. But color me not impressed (and grouchy tonight...very grouchy)
On the first point, Shield Can you get ridiculous AC's with this? Yes. But it is a limited resource with spell slots and reactions. A first level dip into any class only gets you 2 shields a day. If someone is optimizing for that, the DM probably isn't throwing enough encounters in a day. Hexblade warlock level one dip is only 1 slot a short rest, and if you are saving it for shield...well, sounds like you are short encounters again. impacts Bladesingers and EK's tremendously in a negative way. I have used and DM'ed with this spell in play; it's hardly overpowered if you have a reasonable amount of encounters OR a fight that lasts more than a couple of rounds. I'd ban counterspell before this, and I wouldn't ban that either. Listening to Treatmonks problem isn't the spell; its the encounters aren't frequent enough to make the choice of using or not using the sheild spell an important one. And if I am burning a 3rd level slot for shield...well that's just a bad day.
On the second point This is to prevent a mage tank unless you are an EK or Bladesinger (to a limited point). It might preserve the flavor of old D&D, but that isn't interesting. If we are worried about every mage wearing a chain shirt, please note that Mage Armor is more effective until you get to heavy armors. And Mage armor + Dex is better in most cases anyway it equates half-plate, except your dex isn't bound by the armor. This seems to be a flavor point, and really restricts choice. When you are dealing with magical equipment yes the AC starts jumping, but I'm sorry encounter design and the monsters can fix this. They can use magical equipment too. Finally; his idea of fantasy may not align with others.
The third point is the worst though. We already have this with sharpshooter and great weapon master, which reduces the value of those feats, and personally I already think both are overpowered now (more sharpshooter than GWM). Monks can get way overpowered, getting a +12-15 (assuming dex damage bonus) on two strikes after 5th level. Moon druids with multi attack also gets to be problematic (some forms have 3 attacks as the attack action). At later levels, I already have to boost the health of brute style monsters to make fights challenging, so this just magnifies that problem because of the existing sharpshooters. A bladesinger with this, also hits in the same range of +12-15 per attack without GFB.
Where this is really bad, is in my experience, you get to the point that AC doesn't scale as fast as player's attack bonuses so at a certain tipping point, this is an always on, and a DM will just add health to the monster so it doesn't die in a round. A a 5th level party of four, each with two attacks against a single Barbed Devil (CR 5, 110 HP) and an AC 15, could wipe it out in 1 round just on the bonus damage. Assuming d8 weapons on a perfect streak, that's 8d8 (32 avg ish) + 14*8 (112) for 144 damage ,max. That is unlikely of course, but on 50% missing its 72, and on 25% its 36. Normally (assumping no Sharpshooter or GWM) its only 64 damage (4*8 = 32) meaning 64 damage max on a perfect run, 32 on a 50% missing, and 16 on 25% miss. 4 level 5s are against a single CR is a hard enounter normally...but not with Treatmonks idea. Again, I think his encounter design probably needs work because his table sound broken to me.
What really bugs me, is that he goes for player fantasy on point #2 for armor, and then ignores it for small characters suddenly hitting like half-orcs. Sword and board fighters in my fantasy eye shouldn't be out doing a Greataxe. But empowering sword and board damage to the same levels, so now we have high damage and high armor...isn't this part of the complaint on the mage and sheild spell? He ignores the shield master feat for his shield users for defensives.
Of course, he could have solved his issues with not using two optional rules: 1. Multiclass (no dips) or 2. feats (no sharpshooter/gwm). He'd get the same effect for his table.
Yeah… no. I can think of a lot of things that would “fix” 5e, and none of those three things are on the list.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah... no. I agree with the others. Never going to use these rules.
Other things aside, this is yet another set of houserules that nerfs many things, but not the dreaded Hexblade dip (besides losing the Shield spell) for Paladins. And other powergaming builds like Sorlocks are still pretty much possible, albeit with lower AC.
And on top of that, these houserules succeed at making racial armor proficiencies completeley and utterly useless. Martials cannot use them because their class already gives them armor proficiencies, and with these houserules, spellcasters cannot use them either, because they cannot cast spells while wearing that armor unless they... already have armor proficiies from their class.
Oh, and it is ridiculous how he calls a cleric's spellcasting weak. This makes me really wonder how well he actually understands the game he is talking about in his video. Bless, Spiritual Weapon, Spirit Guardians and Banishment are among the best spells of their levels. Clerics fall of at higher levels, that is true. But in tier 1 and 2, they are pretty much awesome.
´The power attack rules are nonsensical too. Without feats there already is no reason whatsoever to use a twohanded weapon over sword and board due to how powerful Dueling is compared to Great Weapon Fighting, feats give heavy weapons a niche with GWM - and he takes that niche away completely. Only the heavy polearms have some remaining use due to reach and Polearm Master. And Moon Druids don't really need power attacks either.
Treatmonk's House Rules are for his table, and his table does not match mine is for sure.
It's worth noting by "fixing" D&D he means fixing it optimization-wise. Like, in terms of fixing it for people for run hyper-optimized builds. I mean, he does run games for patrons and I assume his patrons are probably into optimized-builds (can you blame them). He does admit in the follow-up that that doesn't match most tables. So keep that in mind, because I am likely never going to ever use any of these rules.
But assuming that your table does indeed follow treatmonk's tables (a series of very optimized one-shots). Generally I think his fixes are fine but they sort of take a sledgehammer approach. My guess is that he thinks it's better to overnerf things than not nerf them enough, and that eventually he'll smooth these out through playtesting. Going to list the part of Treatmonk's reasoning that i most agree with, and then my own thoughts.
First one is... okay. His problem is that shield is way too overpowered compared to the other first level spells, breaks bonded accuracy, and he wants to make positioning more important. I think it's a overreaction banning it, a nerf is probably better, but I guess it doesn't mess with anything. Maybe it's a slight buff to magic missile but not really cause most enemies don't have spellcasting much less the shield spell.
Second one is a bit better. His problem for reference is that going 1 Fighter rest Caster is just way too good, but that's just a issue in running one-shots (terrible level progression doesn't matter). I think it goes a little too far, allowing certain sources of armor proficiency such as through feats is balanced and allows for that "War Mage" fantasy a lot of people have. Races that have armor prof. also need some form of compensation.
Third one is, well it makes everything viable at the cost of two-handed STR weapons. It just means you aren't forced to run GWM/SS in order to have a "optimized" build, frees up a feat. Reminder, this is for hyper-optimized tables, for those tables this actually doesn't provide any damage boost at all in terms of overall party damage. GWM & PAM/SS & CBE is still way more damage. As for my thoughts? I think if you go through with this two-handed weapons need to be buffed, cause now they need to compete with PAM (superior damage), Dueling + Shield (superior defense), and CBE (DEX is superior than STR).
Yeah honestly I would probably have just nerfed Shield, GWM & SS. Maybe at most I'd limit multiclassing proficiencies, but even then might not.
Edit: Honestly the biggest thing here is just that these HB rules are designed for his table, which consists of a bunch of hyper-optimized one-shots. He definitely should have emphasized that more. This isn't some miracle fix all balance issues, nor is it fixing all major balance issues, just all balance issues he experiences in his one particular type of game he hosts.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
So you mean the opposite of “fixing.” (What’s that called again?🤔)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Funny that he suggests those house-rules and in the one-shot with the Dungeon Dudes, all 3 characters have shield, even the druid and the fighter...
I should have proofread that sentence. What I meant to say:
It's worth noting by "fixing" D&D he means fixing it from the perspective of optimization. Removing the most "must-have" options to allow for more unique builds is the idea of these fixes.
Edit: As I said, this is a fix for a very specific type of problem that just doesn't exist in my table (players forcing themselves to grab certain feats/multiclasses/etc to be optimal, see the D&D dudes one-shot as a prime example of this "issue"). I'm not going to defend Treatmonk's house rules any more than I currently have in these two videos. He has videos for that and I don't personally have any investment in said house rules cause again, none of the issues presented apply to my specific table.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Hate it. I think a lot of people have a misconception about the strength of Shield because it's so often misused.
Where people go wrong is that a lot of DMs will tell you what an enemy's total was (e.g- "the orc got a 21 to hit") which means the target knows whether the +5 from Shield will turn a hit into a miss or not, but this isn't how it's supposed to work; all you're supposed to know is that you were hit, not by how much. In other words, the DM shouldn't ask players "does a 21 hit you?" but instead ask the player for their AC then so "you were hit", so when they choose to use Shield it's a gamble (might not be enough to make a difference).
There may be an argument for disallowing Shield on some kinds of exploitative builds, i.e- full casters that somehow have both Shield on top of a really high base AC. IMO the spell is intended for casters with light armour or Mage Armor as their base protection, so they need to be able to boost it.
This one I don't get; the whole point of vocal only spells is that you don't need a free hand to use them.
So everybody gets part of both Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter for free? Hard nope from me.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I disagree with this, both as a player and as a DM I prefer giving the exact number. The issue many people overlook with forcing that Shield gamble is that the probability of the Shield spell actually being successfull heavily depends on the base AC, which means it is straight up unfair to casters with lower AC.
If a character has a very high base AC to begin with, monsters are unlikely to exceed that AC by 5 or more with their attack rolls, meaning if that character gets "hit" the Shield spell will be an almost guaranteed success. On the other hand, if a character's base AC is very low, there is a higher chance that an attack that "hits" him exceeds his AC by 5 or more, causing a Shield spell to be wasted. Giving them the exact number streamlines combat a lot (especially when there are other characters who have abilities that allow them to know the attack roll) and makes things fair for all Shield users, as they all know if their Shield spell is going to succeed or not.
Of course there are many ways I as a DM can challenge Shield-spamming characters. Adding a spellcaster or two means they now have to choose between burning their reaction on Shield or on a Counterspell attempt. Increasing the encounter's difficulty and the number of encounters means they are more starved of resources and will feel the cost of each and every slot they use on Shield. Using skirmishing monsters like fast flyers, monks or rogue-like NPCs in an encounter means they have to choose between using their reaction on Shield or an opportunity attack. Blasting them with a breath weapon means they have to decide between using Absorb Elements and Shield. And so forth.
I should probably clarify, I'm talking about the total specifically; I've nothing against the DM revealing the base d20 roll as necessary (or as standard if they prefer) for College of Lore Bards, Lucky and similar abilities that respond to the dice roll itself, as these imply that the base rolls are not actually intended to be secret.
A knowledgeable player can still metagame if they know roughly what the attack bonus is already, but I usually consider guessing that (along with a target's AC) part of the game, plus a DM can always give enemies bonuses to prevent metagaming (so even a player who memorised all the standard monster stat blocks can't know for sure what stats an enemy has without some hits and/or misses).
Also as I said, if a player has Shield on top of a high base AC then there may be an argument to exclude it for them on a case-by-case basis. A Battle Smith for example is clearly intended to have solid AC plus Shield, but they're half casters so it's less of a problem than say a Fighter 1/Sorcerer N build designed specifically to be near impossible to hit.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This was my point; Encounter design and frequency really make shield a non-issue. Is it overpowered? No, it is a magical effect that is intended to break bounded accuracy, at a cost of a reaction and a spell slot. And Semako is dead on correct on the examples. I've played a Bladesinger in melee, and had a ridiculous AC. And yet, when dragons, or casters came up, the need to save the reaction for the right action was critical, so sometimes you had to roll with the punches (or whatever). At later levels, there are even better options.
But even without spell casters, if you have hidden opponents (advantage can go a long way) or just large numbers that last for more than a round, you're going to run out of spell slots you want to use for shield. There is a point above on the meta knowledge with "Does a 21 hit you?" but in my current games when it happens, the smarter ones just switch tactics, and are designed to handle it. Surround the caster and use the help action, use a spell that forces a save, etc, or just focus on a softer target and just worry about counterspelling the fireball from the caster.
1. Do none of his NPCs use Saving Throw spells? Or lead with a Attack to burn the PC's reaction & then Fireball the party since they can't Counterspell? How many reactions & spell slots are the players willing to burn on casting Shield every round?
2. Just no. Again, more spells that target various saves, like say... not Str or Con? I get the buff to Concentration saves is nice, but what happens when they cast Hold Person, especially upcast to get the entire party with one casting? No one is proficient in Wis saves? So sad, too bad! But you look very impressive with your 28 AC.
3. You need to replace those features in feats, and as others have said, +hit scales faster than AC, so it's eventually free damage.
And if the players are such powergaming min-maxers, then why aren't they running into min-maxed teams of NPCs? Taking on bigger threats? It's not that the players are coming up with creative tactics on the spot in response to what he's throwing at them, so it makes sense that other adventuring parties, mercenaries, etc would have similar preparation & plans, as well as ways to get around them.
Seriously, if Fighter1/Caster X is all it takes to defeat your NPCs... the problem isn't the players. It's that your NPCs are not casting Heat Metal & then kiting the players. Or bring a pile of mooks who know Shocking Grasp.
You know I said I wasn't going to defend treatmonk's video but i'll make another post on the subject because a lot of you are missing the context.
Treatmonk's fixes aren't designed to fix balance issues. He's treatmonk, he judges his builds on the actual DMG 6-8 encounters nonsense and hosts one-shots for his patrons who all probably watch his videos. I highly doubt he hasn't learnt how to make a encounter by now.
These rules are designed to remove the most overpowered options so that people can make more unique builds. If the end goal is not "my party is balanced" then the third rule would not be there and this would be a far longer list of homebrew rules.
The intent, again, is to allow for the a biggest variety of hyperoptimized builds by removing the must-haves checklist. Look again at what those rules target: 1. Overreliance on the Shield spell (as opposed to things like cover or Defensive Duelist), 2. 1 Fighter Rest Wizard type builds (probably went too far here in my opinion), 3. GWM/SS builds (tell me the last time you saw a "min-max" fighter without either one of these feats that wasn't going for a tank build).
I'm not going to say they are great house rules for all of D&D. They are great houserules for his table and suit his purpose. They are certainly not a great fix for D&D balance issues or any table that doesn't care about this sort of thing (likely a large majority of tables).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
But #1 wouldn't be a thing (or "hyperoptimized") if he wasn't going all-in on attack rolls / Magic Missile in very few, very short fights. So as odd as it may sound, it seems like he hasn't learned how to make a encounter by now. Or at least not encounters for the types of people he's running games for. Shield is not only not overpowered, but completely useless against ability checks, saving throws, social encounters, puzzles, or fights that last more rounds than the number of spell slots you're willing to use casting Shield. So it seems like he rarely if ever uses those things in his adventures. Slow the fight down, lower the DPR, and see if PCs are still casting Shield after all thier 1st & 2nd level spell slots are gone on the 2nd or 3rd fight today.
Having the bad guys use non Str / Con saving throws also covers #2. If the players don't have a good Int save, Feeblemind them (assuming the PCs are of a level where having the BBEG casting a 8th level spell isn't ridiculous). You're now a Fighter 1 / Drool Factory X! Hold Person, Charm Person, and so on... One base casting of Slow should give the entire party of PCs a migraine. Anyone who fails that save becomes the target for all the attack rolls later in the turn.
If that aspect of GWM/SS is a problem, the solution definitely isn't to just give it to everyone. It's to replace that aspect of those two feats with something else. Given how it seems the fights are going pretty fast by the need for rule #1, lowering the damage output would help deal with the issues behind both house rules.
He's house ruling to cover problems he, not the RAW, created. (And badly, at that.)
No, I got the context, and I understand the perspective you bring. But the context from the OP was "what do I think of the rules?"
I think the rules would be terrible for any table I play at. I disagree with his conclusions that these are great, and I discussed why. Do I have players that are hyper-optimized? Yep, and encounter design was the fix for play, and they had fun.
Your table experience is different, and so your mileage may vary. However, when you (Treatmonk rather) go around with a public video titled "Fix D&D with 3 simple house rules" I expect something that actually is useful in a general sense. Am I biased to my table? Yep. And as I said, he'd get the same net effect if he banished feats and multiclassing. No dipping, no must have feats, no armor issues that impact his fantasy perspective. Easy to remember. And probably less fun. I am well aware of his work, and have read his guides and I understand he has some biases, and that his tables tend to come from crunchier places. But not every table does. So he calling these three as good generic fixes...I just disagree.
As several others have pointed out, if you want to "Fix D&D" the places he lists, aren't where I (or they) would start. And you summed up my opinion perfectly:
Also, he contradicts himself in the video. He bans Shield & semi-bans Fighter 1 / Wizard X because they lead to non-iconic builds, but then gives everyone GWM so they can make non-iconic builds. Sounds like he's had too many people at his table having the wrong kind of fun, and he's not going to let them get away with it anymore.
Why not? You don't think a character can tell when they get hit with a glancing blow that shield would be able to deflect, and when they get skewered in the gut in a way that no spell can stop?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Then describe it that way, but not "the orc rolled X in total." which is Y over your AC, so you *know* if Shield will make a difference. So yes, Shield should save me from "He barely gets a glancing blow to make contact." and not "He hit you solidly, as if he knew how you'd react before he even swung.", but what about "The blow lands well enough that you'll feel it in the morning."? Is that a +5 or +6 over my AC? Is casting Shield a waste of a spell slot & my reaction, or will it deflect the massive axe coming at my head & save me a dozen hit points?
And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects. So you can't just go "I cast Shield & deflect that sword attack." because when you start slinging the mojo is when they decide to come at you from a different angle with another weapon. And even that may just be a distraction from the original swing, and so on. The attack roll is really about how much the attacker has (or hasn't) out-maneuvered the defender. So maybe the better description is "The orc has managed to get a strike past your web of defenses, do you have any last second reactions?" Then you cast Shield, or not, and if yes, then the GM describes if the spell was successful or not. Maybe the force was enough to move the spear off course & you hear the tip buzz past the side of your head, or maybe thier aim stays true, and your shoulder gets split like a piece of firewood. But you have to make that call before you know how sure the outcome is, not after.