The Bloodhunter Class is Causing me Existential Despair

[aadder]

Hello everyone,

So for the past few weeks I've been trying to build like a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Kyde character: some sort of high-intellect human that morphs into a big, unkillable melee engine. To this end I am working with the Beast Barbarian.

A friend reminded me that the Lycanthropy BLoodHunter subclass exists, and since then I have been feeling pointless, stupid, and like a human waste.

I feel completely defeated, because I felt very clever trying to use the Barbarian to represent a classic horror trope, and the existence of the Bloodhunter subclass really makes me feel useless.

I feel like my creativity is being punished, and reminded that I am nothing: a waster before the ability of Wizards to just DUMP a mary-sue class into the game that does what a Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard do, but at the same time, but BETTER, with no downsides, and ALSO it's a werewofl.

I feel completely defeated and no longer want to play this game anymore. I feel like there's not point to tyring to create sometehing when a very obvious self-insert from outside media can jsut sit itself down on my face and smother me in irrelevancy.

Am I wrong here?

SHould I just.. stop playing?

[Derges]

Hello everyone,

So for the past few weeks I've been trying to build like a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Kyde character: some sort of high-intellect human that morphs into a big, unkillable melee engine. To this end I am working with the Beast Barbarian.

A friend reminded me that the Lycanthropy BLoodHunter subclass exists, and since then I have been feeling pointless, stupid, and like a human waste.

I feel completely defeated, because I felt very clever trying to use the Barbarian to represent a classic horror trope, and the existence of the Bloodhunter subclass really makes me feel useless.

I feel like my creativity is being punished, and reminded that I am nothing: a waster before the ability of Wizards to just DUMP a mary-sue class into the game that does what a Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard do, but at the same time, but BETTER, with no downsides, and ALSO it's a werewofl.

I feel completely defeated and no longer want to play this game anymore. I feel like there's not point to tyring to create sometehing when a very obvious self-insert from outside media can jsut sit itself down on my face and smother me in irrelevancy.

Am I wrong here?

SHould I just.. stop playing?

Unless I'm missing something the bloodhunter class is just Matt Mercer's premium Homebrew. It's not part of the game unless you want it to be. Matt is famous and a pretty good DM but there's no reason why you can't do better.


This was my first homebrew class waaaaay back before DMs Guild first started, and I had a LOT to learn. Originally spawned as a handful of variant abilities I designed for Vin Diesel guesting on my D&Diesel one-shot to promote his film "The Last Witch Hunter"

[Anonymouswizard]

Hello everyone,

So for the past few weeks I've been trying to build like a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Kyde character: some sort of high-intellect human that morphs into a big, unkillable melee engine. To this end I am working with the Beast Barbarian.

A friend reminded me that the Lycanthropy BLoodHunter subclass exists, and since then I have been feeling pointless, stupid, and like a human waste.

Bah, there's multiple ways to get to any concept, and there's no need to abandon the more fun way just because an easier method presents itself. Have you seen how long the 3.X community spends optimising Fighters despite the fact that casters almost certainly have a spell for that?

Plus the Blood Hunter is kind of a weird class, being a mesh of three archetypes into a pretty niche concept with weird abilities that don't function how the rest of the game does (doesn't it have max hp reduction? That's bonkers for 5e). The game will probably be better once people forget it exists.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Don't feel obligated to perform a role in its "best fit" if you can fulfill it in a way you prefer more. If the Barbarian you've come up with fulfills the character fantasy you're aiming for and you prefer it, go for it.

[Dork_Forge]

The Blood Hunter isn't a Wizards class, it's basically famous homebrew and the design doesn't line up well.

It's also basically the 'be pop culture' class, with things like the alchemist subclass blatantly being 'inspired' by the Witcher series.

Beast Barbarian works well, you'll likely have fun with it. There's no reason to let something existing, regadless of homebrew status, to discourage you from being creative your own way, it's the whole point of playing D&D instead of a video game.

[Unoriginal]

Hello everyone,

So for the past few weeks I've been trying to build like a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Kyde character: some sort of high-intellect human that morphs into a big, unkillable melee engine. To this end I am working with the Beast Barbarian.

A friend reminded me that the Lycanthropy BLoodHunter subclass exists, and since then I have been feeling pointless, stupid, and like a human waste.

I feel completely defeated, because I felt very clever trying to use the Barbarian to represent a classic horror trope, and the existence of the Bloodhunter subclass really makes me feel useless.

I feel like my creativity is being punished, and reminded that I am nothing: a waster before the ability of Wizards to just DUMP a mary-sue class into the game that does what a Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard do, but at the same time, but BETTER, with no downsides, and ALSO it's a werewofl.

I feel completely defeated and no longer want to play this game anymore. I feel like there's not point to tyring to create sometehing when a very obvious self-insert from outside media can jsut sit itself down on my face and smother me in irrelevancy.

Am I wrong here?

SHould I just.. stop playing?

The Blood Hunter is *not* an official class by any mean.

The only difference between it and the busted homebrews you can find on D&D wiki or elsewhere is who made it, and it's certainly not a seal of quality.

Reminder that the Blood Hunter class used to be so bad that the PC who used it in Critical Role (meaning the class's creator was DMing every step of the debacle) killed themselves on live television using its class features.


Matt is famous and a pretty good DM

He's one of those things.

Mercer is genuinely great at establishing a mood and performing as NPCs, but in term of homebrewing, NPC building, encounter building and rule arbitration, he's worse than average.

We're talking about a DM who reacted to the Monk being effective by giving Stun immunity to a good share of his bosses (back-to-back, even) and have foes that inflict damage whenever they get hit... while forgetting again and again that the Monk was immune to the chosen damage type.

[aadder]

Thanks everyone.

I'm sorry for flying off the handle.

Some stuff in the US is making my life really awful right now so I'm not in a happy space lol.

Tomorrow I have a really fun post planned instead; i hope you like it.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Blood Hunter isn't a Wizards class, it's basically famous homebrew and the design doesn't line up well. This. Not allowed in my games. I did however borrow the NPC blood hunter as an evil dude chasing down the party during Tiers I and II. I am glad that CR has attracted more people to the game. I am disappointed in the baggage they end up carrying along thanks to that ... :smallconfused:

[Derges]

He's one of those things.

Mercer is genuinely great at establishing a mood and performing as NPCs, but in term of homebrewing, NPC building, encounter building and rule arbitration, he's worse than average.

We're talking about a DM who reacted to the Monk being effective by giving Stun immunity to a good share of his bosses (back-to-back, even) and have foes that inflict damage whenever they get hit... while forgetting again and again that the Monk was immune to the chosen damage type.

I was going for a level of comment on his ability that was bland enough not to undermine the main bit of the response clearly, I failed.

[TotallyNotEvil]

I thought the consensus is that it sucks anyway?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Consensus implies there's some type of official and majority opinion. There's not.

Honestly, I see more people liking it vs bashing it to be honest. And my personal experiences with it have been fine, it hasn't been too strong or too weak and I oddly enough have a Blood Hunter in both campaigns I run. A full on Profane Soul Archfey Hunter in a Now DarkSun campaign (Long story, started as Wild Beyond the Witchlight, then went SpellJammer and now Athas). And I have a BattleSmith Artificer/Blood Hunter in a Curse of Strahd game.

All in all, I wouldn't use the Lycan Hunter as a Jekyll/Hyde figure, I'd much more likely run a Barbarian. Maybe pick up Ritual Caster or some other stuff to lean into the "Intelligent" out of Rage stuff.

But the class works fairly well despite the strange amount of heavy nay-saying.

[Unoriginal]

But the class works fairly well despite the strange amount of heavy nay-saying.

It got heavily revised until it worked, yes.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It got heavily revised until it worked, yes.

Yeah, that's how balancing tends to work. The Lycan Hunter in Campaign 1 was clunkier than Molly was clunkier than Chetney. But it isn't near the mess you paint it. Taliesin didn't "Accidentally kill himself" because of a offkilter ability. He took a calculated risk to try and win a battle. It's like blaming the Rogue chasis because a Rogue was cornered on a crumbling roof and failed an athletics roll to leap to safety. The Dice chose.

[Lokishade]

Even though Artificer is a class that exists, I'll still play my Iron Man ersatz as a Fighter1/AbjurerX.

I'm not even picking Xanathar's Warmage over Abjurer, even though it would cover this build's greatest weakness: Saves. While a perfectly reasonable alternative, flavor-wise, I want Arcane Ward and the Shield spell to be the medieval stand-in for defensive nano-bots.


I've wanted to play a Valkyrie for a while. How am I gonna go about it? I've yet to find a homebrew that isn't a hilariously unbalanced mary-sue of a class. And do I really want WotC to just give it to me? No! I want to be creative! So, my Valkyrie is a straight up Hexblade Tomelock with copious amounts of fluff.

I pick Tome so that I can pick Book of Ancient Secrets for Ceremony and choice cantrips. I'm a minor goddess, I too can create holy water and consecrate corpses so they don't get defiled. I want to shout with a godly voice (Thaumaturgy) inside the head of my enemies (Viscious Mockery). I want angelic wings that conjure up a continual storm of feathers that sting like wasps and I can have them with Cloak of Flies without changing any game mechanic.

Now Accursed Specter makes sense on a warrior oriented gish build. It allows me to mechanically showcase my RP powers over life and death. And when I get the occasion, I pick Aspect of the Moon, so I become even more otherworldly by being the party's sleepless guardian.

Sure, there are people who will tell me there are more efficient ways to play Warlock, that is by spamming Eldritch Blast from a safe distance and do away with all the fluff by picking only the Eldritch Evocations that bosst EB. To them I say... that's my other fantasy: the Gunslinger.


Even though Eldtritch Blast doesn't require a focus, I use a focus every time I use Eldritch Blast. Or any other ranged cantrips for that matter. I pick a staff. I don't even have to argue with my DM whether or not I can use it as a quarterstaff. I fashion this magic staff as a rifle. Simple as that. The rest of the features go to upgrading EB and survivability. The archetype barely matters. I pick Fey to up the edginess of this character, like he's so above influence (charms) and can intimidate people with a stern glare (again, charms, but fluffed)

Is it silly? It sure is. Do I care? Absolutely not.


With your Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hide concept, you can restrict yourself to any level of customization you want and creatively IKEA your idea with what you have.

All the tables I play ban Tasha's and one of them even ban Xanathar's (although, my hilariously unoptimized Valkyrie gets a pass because she is unoptimized while a plain Swords Bard does not because it gets like 5 features at level 3 and makes the Valor Bard feel obsolete).

It's always a matter of either finding the right group or finding a common ground with the group you have.

[Amnestic]

I've wanted to play a Valkyrie for a while. How am I gonna go about it? I've yet to find a homebrew that isn't a hilariously unbalanced mary-sue of a class. And do I really want WotC to just give it to me? No! I want to be creative! So, my Valkyrie is a straight up Hexblade Tomelock with copious amounts of fluff.

Not to necessarily argue against your chosen way to be creative, but if you're not a fan of other people's homebrew, have you considered doing your own?

[aadder]

All the tables I play ban Tasha's and one of them even ban Xanathar's (although, my hilariously unoptimized Valkyrie gets a pass because she is unoptimized while a plain Swords Bard does not because it gets like 5 features at level 3 and makes the Valor Bard feel obsolete).


Holy cow that feels terrifying. I kinda figured that Tasha's wasn't that controversial but now I feel pretty scared :(

[ProsecutorGodot]

Holy cow that feels terrifying. I kinda figured that Tasha's wasn't that controversial but now I feel pretty scared :(

Don't feel pressured to allow/disallow content based on opinions outside of the group you're currently playing with. Tables can have drastic differences and opinions of what content is allows, that doesn't mean any of them are wrong.

[Unoriginal]

Don't feel pressured to allow/disallow content based on opinions outside of the group you're currently playing with. Tables can have drastic differences and opinions of what content is allows, that doesn't mean any of them are wrong.

That is great advice.

[Lokishade]

Not to necessarily argue against your chosen way to be creative, but if you're not a fan of other people's homebrew, have you considered doing your own?

I used to be more open to homebrew, but not as much anymore. Most of the homebrew I do nowadays is upping the power of the PHB archetypes to match the power level of Xanathar's. In the beginning, I've put up with Xanathar's power creep, because it offered a diversity that the PHB lacked. For instance, I love the Swashbuckler archetype because I always wanted to play a fencing, carousing French noble like in The Three Musketeers. Putting that fantasy on the Rogue chassis isn't something I'd have thought of.

Things like ignoring the Exhaustion rider on the Berserker's Frenzy or giving the level 7 abilities of the Champion Fighter at level 3 and make them work with proficiency (but not expertise) are fine, but the moment I try to bring in my Dervish Dancer Monk subclass, my friends immediately want to play their overpowered Blood Knights and Summoners.

I'd get the same problem if I straight up invented a Valkyrie, but I avoid all of that if I pick things that already exist. Out of that necessity, I discovered the joy of RP fluff and, yes, it makes me feel clever.

I know I have biases, but that's life. Our perceptions are immensely shaped by experience.

[MadMusketeer]

He's one of those things.

Mercer is genuinely great at establishing a mood and performing as NPCs, but in term of homebrewing, NPC building, encounter building and rule arbitration, he's worse than average.

We're talking about a DM who reacted to the Monk being effective by giving Stun immunity to a good share of his bosses (back-to-back, even) and have foes that inflict damage whenever they get hit... while forgetting again and again that the Monk was immune to the chosen damage type.

Essentially, Matthew Mercer is good at the parts of DMing that make for an entertaining viewing experience, which is why Critical Role is so popular, but he's less good at the rest of it. It's not like he's terrible at it - his players generally seem to have fun, which is, at the end of the day, the only metric that actually matters - but I wouldn't generally assume quality from anything he creates (although, credit where it's due, it is, generally, pretty cool, if unbalanced - the kind of thing I would want to build a character around, were it balanced appropriately), or take him to be the standard for DMing.

[Leon]

I thought the consensus is that it sucks anyway?

Consensus on game forums is a tricky thing to believe with the nebulous hivemind in effect where if its not "optimal" its a bad choice.

Nothing about the class standouts out to me, its a interesting thing to read but for all the times I've made a character idea I've never gone "I'll use the bloodhunter" and when i have thought to even look at it I've decided that another class or Multiclass would suit the idea better anyway. It does a Witcher concept well enough an that's about all in my mind, but i can also use any other class to theme a Witcher really.

[kazaryu]

We're talking about a DM who reacted to the Monk being effective by giving Stun immunity to a good share of his bosses (back-to-back, even) and have foes that inflict damage whenever they get hit... while forgetting again and again that the Monk was immune to the chosen damage type.

there are 3 ways to deal with stunning strike.
1. stun immunity
2. have multiple viable enemies (i.e. don't have a single big bad, have several equal strength big bads that fight together
3. increase constitution saving throws.

legendary saves don't really help, at all, because of how frequently a monk can force the saving throw
option 2 is out if you want to have a single big bad, as is common in literature and the overall fantasy.
option 3 only serves to make a fight swingy...either the big bad (if you have a single big bad) fails its save against stunning strike, and as a result gets steamrolled...or it doesn't and stunning strike is a waste.

stun immunity, therefore completely removing the ability from the table, is the best way to deal with it. well, that and having mooks that are significantly weaker than the big bad, that are vulnerable to it...which is another thing that typically happened. Lucien, the final boss, had his whole party...M9 just killed most of them with a clever trap/ambush.

like, im not saying that Mercer is the god DM, but there's no reason to misrepresent him...he's a good DM, not a perfect one (who is?).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm curious, what are the concerns on the Blood Hunter? I see a lot of "It's unbalanced and bad" But rarely do I see why's. Having DM'd for two, I didn't find anything objectionable. But, Admittedly, I have only DM'd for a Profane Soul and a MC one that'll probably be a Ghostslayer, is the balance issue in the Lycan or Mutant?

[Unoriginal]

there are 3 ways to deal with stunning strike.
1. stun immunity
2. have multiple viable enemies (i.e. don't have a single big bad, have several equal strength big bads that fight together
3. increase constitution saving throws.

legendary saves don't really help, at all, because of how frequently a monk can force the saving throw
option 2 is out if you want to have a single big bad, as is common in literature and the overall fantasy.
option 3 only serves to make a fight swingy...either the big bad (if you have a single big bad) fails its save against stunning strike, and as a result gets steamrolled...or it doesn't and stunning strike is a waste.

stun immunity, therefore completely removing the ability from the table, is the best way to deal with it.

Or: you can let the Monk do their cool thing.

That is the best way to deal with it, IMO.



like, im not saying that Mercer is the god DM, but there's no reason to misrepresent him

I'm not misrepresenting him.

[AvvyR]

I'm curious, what are the concerns on the Blood Hunter? I see a lot of "It's unbalanced and bad" But rarely do I see why's. Having DM'd for two, I didn't find anything objectionable. But, Admittedly, I have only DM'd for a Profane Soul and a MC one that'll probably be a Ghostslayer, is the balance issue in the Lycan or Mutant?

As someone who's played a few Blood Hunters, played alongside a few more, and DM'd a few more, they are in no way better than a fighter rogue and wizard combined. Or really even any of those individually. I'd say Blood Hunter's biggest issue is fiddly crunchy mechanics, especially the mutant order.

[Amechra]

The one Blood-Hunter I've seen in play kept almost dying, to the point where she consumed most of our healing resources.

Protip: if your class's main gimmick is taking damage to boost your stuff, maybe don't go with two-weapon fighting while insisting on being a frontliner? :smalltongue:

---

Personally, my issue is more that everything's kinda wonky?



The Ghostslayer is probably the best of the subclasses, because it's the most straight-forward. Your damage buff is better, you get +1 use of your Blood Curses, and you have a solid scouting ability (you can walk through walls). If I was going to play one personally, I'd play a Ghostslayer.
The Lycan is a pretty strong unarmed fighter (you end up with what are effectively +3 unarmed strikes plus 11th level Martial Arts by the end of the class)... but you have to make an easy-to-pass Wisdom save every turn you're below half health (which you auto-fail if concentrating on a spell or raging) or unload your attacks on the nearest creature instead of getting to pick. The save is either trivial or terrible, with no real in-between — no thanks!
The Mutant... sucks? Their whole thing is that each mutagen gives you a buff and a debuff, but the buffs generally aren't worth the hassle. Like, the best combo I can see (Celerity + Cruelty + Precision) requires 15th level, gives you disadvantage on ALL mental saves and Strength saves... and in exchange makes you equivalent to an 11th level Champion Fighter (three attacks + 19-20 crits) with Dexterity 24. Without Action Surge or the bonus Fighting Style. And it takes up your bonus action. Yeah, I'll pass.
The Profane Soul seems OK... but you're a pact magic third-caster, and your actual subclass features are a bit meh. Have fun with Eldritch Blast without Agonizing Blast, I guess?


And then there are the Blood Curses, which are made out to be a big thing, but are mostly just equivalent to Channel Divinities (with an added boost if you take damage while using them). That's... not really enough to carry a class, especially since your other non-subclass features are the basic "I'm a martial character" stuff (Fighting Style at 2nd, Extra Attack at 5th), your "take damage to deal more damage" weapon buff, a pair of decent features at 6th and 10th (Brand of Castigation is a decent 1/short rest curse that gets boosted by your subclass, while Dark Augmentation is +5ft speed and a big bonus to Str/Dex/Con saves), along with a bunch of ribbons.

[kazaryu]

Or: you can let the Monk do their cool thing.

That is the best way to deal with it, IMO. which matt does...by having other enemies to fight. However, its also important as a DM to ensure that your player's 'cool things' don't sap the tension from a fight, at least when you're running the style of campaign that CR is. and monk stunning strike absolutely can do that, this is a known problem.




I'm not misrepresenting him.


We're talking about a DM who reacted to the Monk being effective by giving Stun immunity to a good share of his bosses (back-to-back, even) pretending like this isn't a perfectly reasonable way to deal with monks is misrepresentation. you also misrepresented by making it sound like Beau was never able to use her stunning strike at all, which is false, and also misrepresentation.

you may run your fights differently, you may even have a different style of game, thats fine too. but to claim that someone else isn't a good DM just because they run a different style to you is incredibly asinine.

[stoutstien]

which matt does...by having other enemies to fight. However, its also important as a DM to ensure that your player's 'cool things' don't sap the tension from a fight, at least when you're running the style of campaign that CR is. and monk stunning strike absolutely can do that, this is a known problem.




pretending like this isn't a perfectly reasonable way to deal with monks is misrepresentation. you also misrepresented by making it sound like Beau was never able to use her stunning strike at all, which is false, and also misrepresentation.

you may run your fights differently, you may even have a different style of game, thats fine too. but to claim that someone else isn't a good DM just because they run a different style to you is incredibly asinine.

If a DM feels like they're encounters are getting destroyed by SS then maybe don't allow monks? There's nothing wrong with the class or It's ability to affect encounters the problem is the class interferes with the ability to make effective entertainment for others listening. Monks are tension poppers by design.

Yeah it's a good thing he allows them to stun inconsequential opponents we want them one of them to feel completely useless or anything.
Oh yeah make sure you make them make ridiculously high DC checks for them to do non mechanical impactful flavored Kung Fu stuff with severe punishments for failure.

And if you introduce a new subclass make sure that it is ridiculously undertuned and even more MaD.

He doesn't like monks or monk antics and he was 100% be better off not allowing him in his games than trying to stealth nerf them the whole time.

[kazaryu]

If a DM feels like they're encounters are getting destroyed by SS then maybe don't allow monks? There's nothing wrong with the class or It's ability to affect encounters

the problem is the class interferes with the ability to make effective entertainment for others listening. Monks are tension poppers by design. this thread isn't meant to be what problems exist with monks. suffice it to say that all of this is subjective, its based on the game being run. just because a game is being run differently, doesn't make its runner incompetent.


Yeah it's a good thing he allows them to stun inconsequential opponents we want them one of them to feel completely useless or anything. *this* however is untrue. most of the etra opponents weren't 'inconsequential' at least no by design. they would be incredibly effective. Of course sometimes players pass saves, or attack rolls miss, or the monk stuns them, and as a result through the tactics employed in the fight, a particular enemy may end up being of little practical consequence. but that doesn't make them an inconsequential opponent, not in the way you imply.


Oh yeah make sure you make them make ridiculously high DC checks for them to do non mechanical impactful flavored Kung Fu stuff with severe punishments for failure.

And if you introduce a new subclass make sure that it is ridiculously undertuned and even more MaD.

He doesn't like monks or monk antics and he was 100% be better off not allowing him in his games than trying to stealth nerf them the whole time.

and again here we get into subjectivity. 'undertuned' by what definition?

at what points did he set the DC's 'ridiculously high' as you described? having seen all of S2 i really never got that feeling. he was developing the class as he went, and using beau as a sort of playtest. so adjustments should be expected...


idk, i get that there are idiots out there that hold Mercer up as the gold standard DM...and even worse go the extra cringe route of trying to force other DM's to behave like him...but thats pretty clearly not his fault...but if you view him through a much more realistic lense, dudes still a good DM.

[stoutstien]

this thread isn't meant to be what problems exist with monks. suffice it to say that all of this is subjective, its based on the game being run. just because a game is being run differently, doesn't make its runner incompetent.
*this* however is untrue. most of the etra opponents weren't 'inconsequential' at least no by design. they would be incredibly effective. Of course sometimes players pass saves, or attack rolls miss, or the monk stuns them, and as a result through the tactics employed in the fight, a particular enemy may end up being of little practical consequence. but that doesn't make them an inconsequential opponent, not in the way you imply.


and again here we get into subjectivity. 'undertuned' by what definition?

at what points did he set the DC's 'ridiculously high' as you described? having seen all of S2 i really never got that feeling. he was developing the class as he went, and using beau as a sort of playtest. so adjustments should be expected...


idk, i get that there are idiots out there that hold Mercer up as the gold standard DM...and even worse go the extra cringe route of trying to force other DM's to behave like him...but thats pretty clearly not his fault...but if you view him through a much more realistic lense, dudes still a good DM.

He is an okay DM, lacking as a PC material designer, and above average as an entertainer. Seeing how he's in a position where he is trying to to sell it as an intertwined product that's a much different standard than someone else is just running a game.

He has a decent eye for setting cohesion and story but he lacks the know how with the nuts and bolts of the system. Not an uncommon problem even for those who are actual employees at WoTC but it doesn't make him immune to criticism of the product that he's attempting to sell.

As far as Cobalt monk goes, it's worse than the sun soul so that tells you about where it is.

[Unoriginal]

at what points did he set the DC's 'ridiculously high' as you described?

During the fight against the mutated Cambion under the Cathedral, I distinctly remember him setting a DC of at least 15 (maybe more) when the Monk tried to... use the wall to do a cool assisted 5ft-long jump, for flavor.

She failed and he made her land prone.

I'm not 100% sure they were at the level where Monks can literally walk on walls, but they were around that level.

I also recall him denying the Monk the use of said walk-on-walls ability, or at least telling her she needed to do STR (Athletics) check like everyone else in order to get up vertical surfaces.

[stoutstien]

During the fight against the mutated Cambion under the Cathedral, I distinctly remember him setting a DC of at least 15 (maybe more) when the Monk tried to... use the wall to do a cool assisted 5ft-long jump, for flavor.

She failed and he made her land prone.

I'm not 100% sure they were at the level where Monks can literally walk on walls, but they were around that level.

I also recall him denying the Monk the use of said walk-on-walls ability, or at least telling her she needed to do STR (Athletics) check like everyone else in order to get up vertical surfaces.

Yeah I couldn't remember any particular circumstance because I have never watched or listen to it in earnest only in passing but I do recall multiple times where he called for checks/saves when the monks explicit class features are clearly meant to avoid such things.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The one Blood-Hunter I've seen in play kept almost dying, to the point where she consumed most of our healing resources.

Protip: if your class's main gimmick is taking damage to boost your stuff, maybe don't go with two-weapon fighting while insisting on being a frontliner? :smalltongue:

I'm assuming this is from an older version of the Blood Hunter? Because the Most times I'm seeing someone able to take their Hemocraft Damage is 6 Times if you Crimson Rite BOTH weapons and then are level 17 + to use Blood Maledict all 4 times between a rest. Like, I definitely see how Crimson Rite hurts more if you 2-Weapon Fight, but it doesn't seem a lot.

[kazaryu]

During the fight against the mutated Cambion under the Cathedral, I distinctly remember him setting a DC of at least 15 (maybe more) when the Monk tried to... use the wall to do a cool assisted 5ft-long jump, for flavor.

She failed and he made her land prone.

I'm not 100% sure they were at the level where Monks can literally walk on walls, but they were around that level.

I also recall him denying the Monk the use of said walk-on-walls ability, or at least telling her she needed to do STR (Athletics) check like everyone else in order to get up vertical surfaces.


He is an okay DM, lacking as a PC material designer, and above average as an entertainer. Seeing how he's in a position where he is trying to to sell it as an intertwined product that's a much different standard than someone else is just running a game.

He has a decent eye for setting cohesion and story but he lacks the know how with the nuts and bolts of the system.

Yeah I couldn't remember any particular circumstance because I have never watched or listen to it in earnest only in passing but I do recall multiple times where he called for checks/saves when the monks explicit class features are clearly meant to avoid such things. so...a lot of this seems to be you implying that its the DM's job to remember all of the features that the PC's have? especially when the PC's themselves don't use those abilities often? now i'll grant you that as an extra skill, its nice to have a DM that does know those things, all the minor details. and remembers them when its appropriate. But i'd hardly call that a requisite for being a 'good DM'. and i don't think a DC15 is all that crazy for that type of check (if your player isn't reminding you that they can literally run on walls)...dc15 is medium difficulty, and falling prone is literally the books consequences for falling. My point is that so often people will put greater weight on his faults than his strengths. so like y'all are saying 'ah, he's a decent story tellers and yada, but he's not as strong at the mechanical side, therefore he's not a good DM'. in my eyes, those skills are weighted a same. a good DM leans into their strengths, and produces a fun game for their players...which Matt demonstrably does. a "great" DM might have a strong grasp on all aspects of DMing. but all a good DM needs to do is make their game fun for their players, be that by being able to present complex mechanical challenges (not really Matt's forte) or by creating a strong dramatic tension and a mostly consistent world in which the players feel like they're navigating a real place (Matt's forte).


Not an uncommon problem even for those who are actual employees at WoTC but it doesn't make him immune to criticism of the product that he's attempting to sell. now don't get me wrong, he absolutely has weaknesses in his play. he obviously doesn't have a complete grasp on the rules (although the jump from S1 to S2 is pretty dramatic. which makes sense since S1 was when they first started 5e). But its also not like he's completely ignorant of the rules either. throughout S2 it was really only a few rules that i saw him get 'wrong' repeatedly. and those are the ones that i'd expect literally any DM struggle with, for one reason or another. things like the BA spell rule, and remembering to do concentration checks. But i didn't see anything that would make me think he was inadequate as a DM. in other words, less than a 'good' DM. maybe we just need to agree to disagree.


As far as Cobalt monk goes, it's worse than the sun soul so that tells you about where it is.

idk...extract aspects is pretty powerful, particularly in a group that is focused on optimization, but also wants to preserve verisimilitude (i.e. don't metagame). many optimized builds will include tools to deal with specialized enemies (that is, enemies that require specialized tactics), or to account for variable resistances (i.e. don't just take fire spells if you're trying to be a damage focused caster), and they just hand wave whether the character would have that knowledge...extract aspects removes that as a question if you can just....know that stuff on a whim. you don't have to worry about doing research as much, and worry about being misled. just let the monk punch and boom. now you know. add in the reaction riposte they get and the feature seems pretty strong. on top of that at level 11 the ability to have multiple reactions in a round?

i get that the subclass is on a monk chasis which has its own struggles. but the subclass itself seems pretty solid to me. you compare it to the sunsoul but...at least cobalt soul's 3rd level feature both directly and indirectly increases combat potential.

[stoutstien]

But wouldn't the level 3 feature have a same impact of SS by removing tension from an encounter by that logic?

Also a 15 DC is high by 5e math. Without proficiency and a relative ability score in the positive it's a crapshoot and unlike other types of rolls they tend to be 1 and done.

Until the given time where a PCs static modifiers are at a higher weight than the die it's still going to be a relatively difficult check regardless of the number.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

As far as Cobalt monk goes, it's worse than the sun soul so that tells you about where it is.

Odd, it's like that's an opinion vs a consensus. Just looking at the color code over on RPG Net I see the Cobalt Soul rated Green. So not as good as Mercy or Long Death but better than Four Elements, Kensei and Sunsoul.

Extract Aspects is rated top tier, Extort and Debilitating Barrage are rated Green. Meanwhile the two low tier abilities, one is rated Low tier because a Monk normally dumps Int and the other because it burns Ki Quickly.

[stoutstien]

Odd, it's like that's an opinion vs a consensus. Just looking at the color code over on RPG Net I see the Cobalt Soul rated Green. So not as good as Mercy or Long Death but better than Four Elements, Kensei and Sunsoul.

Extract Aspects is rated top tier, Extort and Debilitating Barrage are rated Green. Meanwhile the two low tier abilities, one is rated Low tier because a Monk normally dumps Int and the other because it burns Ki Quickly.

Got to be careful with sites like that because they tend to color their opinion based on a particular style of play rather than looking at the full range.

Like they rate the level 3 feature as green but failed to realize that they key off flurry of blow and missed attacks. Now to be fair a lot of monks like to use flurry of blows but when you have low lv features that are tied to ki consumption it really limits them into a set tactic and this isn't a good one. (They overlook this with kensei because they got hung up on the whole weapon image thing but free AC is massive for monks).
This feature is also dependent on the DM basically home brewing a lot. I would say this subclass is stronger at my table because I tend to make a lot of custom NPCs but for tables that run through standard fair type options it's a wall of text that is meaningless besides potentially a reaction attack... Which is gated behind the enemy missing the Monk. No this doesn't work if they actually hit the monk or they attack somebody else. That's a lot of ifs.
Sure they have PD but that's also a bonus action and cost additional Ki. By the time you get in a position one can really leverage this the fight's probably over.

Monks already have a strong use for reactions with deflect missile and slowfall so it's a ok feature as long as it doesn't get them killed trying to proc it.

Extort true is ok. It's actually fairly abusable with certain party combinations. Oh they get select growing expertise in a skill that is a low priority stat. I actually like that feature all n all. I also think that expertise should be used to strengthen lower ability scores but I'm in the minority here.
This is the heart of the subclass and it should come online a lot sooner. there's no reason why the first iteration of this feature cannot start at level three.

Lv 11 is trap adjacent. It seems like a good trade but you have to have a particularly good reason to use it or you are ki dumping and then SS/FoB is still a better return. The only time where I've seen this really shine is in giant focus game where you can use deflect missile repeatedly. Even then I think it feels better than it actually is. Most enemies with half a brain are going to realize that unless the monk is actively threatening them (read SS) it's actually a very bad idea to target them until last.


The capstone is fiddly and fairly low impact because the things that you really want to affect tend to have immunity and by this time the party should have plenty of resources for bypassing any hurdles dealing with damage types. They get empty body one level later.

It has the potential to be really good but it didn't. It doesn't have any real synergy with monks and ki hungry which is the common feature of all the monk subclasses that lag behind.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Got to be careful with sites like that because they tend to color their opinion based on a particular style of play rather than looking at the full range.

If I was taking them as gospel, absolutely. I'm just pointing out that there's not a consensus on Cobalt Soul being bad any more than there is one on Blood Hunter being bad.

I'm not about to jump on someone for liking or not liking a class, but the idea that it's specifically bad vs just not tuned well for certain play styles is not the same.

I despise the Sorcerer, I'm finally playing one now and struggling already to not change characters, but I certainly recognize that the Sorcerer is powerful and that people like it. I can't imagine playing a Barbarian instead of a Fighter or Paladin or Ranger, but people obviously like it. One of my Darksun game's PCs is a Barbarian and having a blast.

[stoutstien]

If I was taking them as gospel, absolutely. I'm just pointing out that there's not a consensus on Cobalt Soul being bad any more than there is one on Blood Hunter being bad.

I'm not about to jump on someone for liking or not liking a class, but the idea that it's specifically bad vs just not tuned well for certain play styles is not the same.

I despise the Sorcerer, I'm finally playing one now and struggling already to not change characters, but I certainly recognize that the Sorcerer is powerful and that people like it. I can't imagine playing a Barbarian instead of a Fighter or Paladin or Ranger, but people obviously like it. One of my Darksun game's PCs is a Barbarian and having a blast.

The problem isn't that Cobalt soul is objectively bad design it's the whole line up. Chrono wizards are busted because of lack of understanding of a major restricting limitation of spell casting, echo knights is just word salad at its best, gunslingers is a more limited battle master, .. oath of open sea is ok but it's hard to miss with paladin oaths, runechild missed the fact what features a sorcerer has at level 1, hemocraft is ripe for abuse, juggernaut reinforces that barbarian should be avoided, blood hunter is getting there but it's still full of issues.

5e is robust enough that you can get away with some bad design but it doesn't take away from what it is.

[kazaryu]

The problem isn't that Cobalt soul is objectively bad design it's the whole line up.you've failed to demonstrate that...all of your complaints essentailly amount to 'cobalt soul uses the monk exclusive resource that monks are supposed to use'. yes, extract aspects is keyed off of FoB, but its a direct benefit to them, not an extra cost. and once you've hit a creature with FoB, you get the riposte-lite for free against that creature. it literally increases the efficiency of FoB, much like open hand monks.


Chrono wizards are busted because of lack of understanding of a major restricting limitation of spell casting, the only feature they have that's remotely 'busted' is convergent futures...which is the subclass capstone. honestly i wish more of the subclasses were on that same level. My only complaint with it is that the amount of overlap it has with portent...but it also comes online a lot late

echo knights is just word salad at its best this is an entirely meaningless critique. im sorry that someone made a cool ability, and then actually added enough wording to ensure it its intent was easily understood.


, gunslingers is a more limited battle master, .. this i'll grant you, to an extent. it was also created for a specific character and very early in Matt's 5e career...but even then it still includes some interesting and unique elements. overall im not a huge fan of misfires, but i suppose they make sense given the setting the class was written for.


, and oath of open sea is ok but it's hard to miss with paladin oaths, this...this isn't even a critique. ok, fair enough.
runechild missed the fact what features a sorcerer has at level 1, thats hilarious, love it when oversight like that happens. ironically sorcerers can now have sorcery points at level one, but that doesn't actually forgive the oversight.


hemocraft is ripe for abuse, i'll grant that blood channeling has the theoretical potential to be abused...otoh i can't think of too many spells that would be all that busted...but im not gonna do a deep dive. like yeah you can cast arcane ward essentially for free, but unless you can arrange for your enemy to step on them...idk, feels too niche. im generally fine with it, much like many of wizards own subclasses. i don't necessarily think its the designers responsibility to make abilties 100% abuse proof.
uggernaut reinforces that barbarian should be avoided, again...what does that even mean? its clera juggernaut is designed with something very specific in mind...how is that bad design? not every class/subclass needs to be universally useful. i like the flavorful nature of it.


blood hunter is getting there but it's still full of issues. specifically?


But wouldn't the level 3 feature have a same impact of SS by removing tension from an encounter by that logic? only if your tension relies on the players not knowing what their foe is capable of..but thats pretty cheap tension, and its not like they aren't going to learn it eventually. so..no? the key is to not make it so that any weaknesses they uncover make the monster a pushover., or allow the monster to cover for its weaknesses somehow.
example: recently i ran my players through an adventure against some meenlocks. the PC's manged to deduce the meenlo0cks light sensitivty, which they attempted to exploit by standing in an outward facing circle with a circle of torches around them. So the meenlocks pushed the torches between the PC's legs to create shadows for them to fight/teleport through. Now, the light sources are still there, so the PC's could still try to use them, but the meenlocks still had counterplay.

SS removes the tension because it makes it impossible for the monster to fight back while amping any attack based damage against them and *also* making it more likely that the monk is able to repeat the stun.


Also a 15 DC is high by 5e math. Without proficiency and a relative ability score in the positive it's a crapshoot and unlike other types of rolls they tend to be 1 and done.at a +0 you have a 25% chance of passing a DC15 check...that is to say an ability check that you have made absolutely no attempt to get better at, or are attempting to learn but have a severe disability...25% (technically 30%). and with as little as a +4 that chance is now 50%. at level 1, an ability that you're at your absolute strongest in (not counting expertise) you can get a +6, which is a 60% chance of success. thats medium difficulty. that means someone that is talented in the field, but only has basic proficiency (i.e. new) can succeed 60% of the time. meanwhile someone with no talent, or training at it, can succeed 30% of the time...idk, that makes sense to me..i mean, as much as linear scaling numbers like that can.

[animorte]

Hey! Now I'll provide some of input on this discussion, especially since the OP has opened up other threads on their character development.


Mercer is genuinely great at establishing a mood and performing as NPCs, but in term of homebrewing, NPC building, encounter building and rule arbitration, he's worse than average.

Essentially, Matthew Mercer is good at the parts of DMing that make for an entertaining viewing experience, which is why Critical Role is so popular, but he's less good at the rest of it. It's not like he's terrible at it - his players generally seem to have fun, which is, at the end of the day, the only metric that actually matters - but I wouldn't generally assume quality from anything he creates (although, credit where it's due, it is, generally, pretty cool, if unbalanced - the kind of thing I would want to build a character around, were it balanced appropriately), or take him to be the standard for DMing.

you may run your fights differently, you may even have a different style of game, thats fine too. but to claim that someone else isn't a good DM just because they run a different style to you is incredibly asinine.

He is an okay DM, lacking as a PC material designer, and above average as an entertainer. Seeing how he's in a position where he is trying to to sell it as an intertwined product that's a much different standard than someone else is just running a game.

He has a decent eye for setting cohesion and story but he lacks the know how with the nuts and bolts of the system. Not an uncommon problem even for those who are actual employees at WoTC but it doesn't make him immune to criticism of the product that he's attempting to sell.

First, dude knows his stuff. (https://youtu.be/tjWv_yEqzc8)

Just knowing the rules isn't enough to be a good DM. He makes room for the "rule of cool" but his specialty is in, you guessed it, acting. He dives into the sounds and voices, that's his area of expertise. Some of NPCs are very popular.

Now, I don't know just how much teamwork goes into his world-building or (sub)class designs. The only thing I really have to say on that is WotC themselves struggle to consistently make balanced and exciting entries. So, if we're comparing to the actual company, he's right on par.

Most importantly, the game is fair and fun. That's the mark of a good DM. Of course, he's far from perfect, but overall he knows what he's doing.

Not to mention, different styles work for different tables. Whatever is fun for your table may be very different from the next.

[Unoriginal]

First, dude knows his stuff. (https://youtu.be/tjWv_yEqzc8)

That video is actually evidence that he *doesn't* know as his stuff as well as people think, and neither do the people who wrote the mistakes to find.

A few that jumps to me watching this video:

1) 5e Pit Fiends can be hurt by silvered weapons. Bonus point for the fact-checker agreeing with Matt saying the silver doesn't work.

2) Neither he nor the people making the questions note that the Pit Fiend would be unable casting a spell then doing a multiattack.

3) He notes the wizard cannot cast a spell and drink a potion, but the wizard did not cast a spell, they used the 6th level subclass ability Benign Transposition. Benign Transposition does not make anyone invisible, either. Once again, the person asking the question declares his explanation to be correct, when it isn't.

4) As the announcer states, it should be assumed there are no magic items beside the ones explicitly mentioned, meaning that the Demilich would be completely immune to the Rogue's damage. Neither he nor the announcer points that out.

There are other points which are more minor, but still would count as mistakes.



Just knowing the rules isn't enough to be a good DM.

True.



He makes room for the "rule of cool" but his specialty is in, you guessed it, acting. He dives into the sounds and voices, that's his area of expertise. Some of NPCs are very popular.

Yes, Mercer is a skilled actor and performer.



Now, I don't know just how much teamwork goes into his world-building or (sub)class designs. The only thing I really have to say on that is WotC themselves struggle to consistently make balanced and exciting entries. So, if we're comparing to the actual company, he's right on par.

His work is generally notably below WotC's already struggling quality control. In term of mechanical viability, I mean.



Most importantly, the game is fair and fun. That's the mark of a good DM. Of course, he's far from perfect, but overall he knows what he's doing.

His games are entertaining to the audience. That is not the same as being fair.

Keep in mind, last year it was admitted Mercer does plan some scenes in advance with the players, to be more dramatic during the episodes.

[animorte]

A few that jumps to me watching this video:

There are other points which are more minor, but still would count as mistakes.
That's fair, but it still stands out in a room with other experienced players/DMs and it's more knowledge than I have claim to.

His work is generally notably below WotC's already struggling quality control. In term of mechanical viability, I mean.
I still think this is a matter of experience and preference, to a certain degree. However, it is not included at my table anyway, so...

His games are entertaining to the audience. That is not the same as being fair.
I completely agree, but the two aren't necessarily on the same scale. Unless you mean, being fair to the audience? The game he runs is mechanically fair to the players, but the game is entertaining to the audience for a variety of reasons.

Keep in mind, last year it was admitted Mercer does plan some scenes in advance with the players, to be more dramatic during the episodes.
Don't you? Introducing a player's new character or figuring out some details around a character is something I love to do as part of the process. Sometimes there is certain information that outright doesn't work if everybody knows about it.

I'm in a campaign right now where I know for a fact at least three of the players are periodically conversing with the DM each with unknown information to the others. It's built in as part of that story.

Chetney's class was introduced in such a way that most of the other players weren't aware. Several other instances with players and their characters are discussed OOC.

I thought this was common.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Keep in mind, last year it was admitted Mercer does plan some scenes in advance with the players, to be more dramatic during the episodes.

Yeah, let's not go into that "It's not real D&D, it's scripted" rabbit hole.

As Animorte already pointed out, every good DM does this. The examples of scripted and planned with the players things are things like Travis knew Bertrand was "Leaving" and it was, in fact, Travis' idea to set things up that way. Travis didn't know the details or how it would happen, however.

I've found lots of DMs that do that thing frequently.

[Witty Username]

I don't mind bloodhunter, it has some cool ideas and has niche traits.

It is hard to claim a class as good when it killed the first character to use it though.
--
Homebrew that is made to be table specific will have vastly different expectations from anything from other tables or the official books.
Cobalt soul, bloodhunter, gunslinger, that beastmaster rework, etc. All seem to work for that table.

At least no one was allowed to multiclass rogue-rogue. That would be a travesty. Even if it fits the character perfectly. - kidding, and shout out to any that watches Oxventure

[Lokishade]

Yeah, let's not go into that "It's not real D&D, it's scripted" rabbit hole.

As Animorte already pointed out, every good DM does this. The examples of scripted and planned with the players things are things like Travis knew Bertrand was "Leaving" and it was, in fact, Travis' idea to set things up that way. Travis didn't know the details or how it would happen, however.

I've found lots of DMs that do that thing frequently.

I do it all the time with my DM. Whenever the character build I tried doesn't turn out as fun as expected, I talk with my DM how best to retire the current character. Either retire dramatically or go out with a bang in combat. We "plan" things, but during the chaos of an actual game, we always get surprised on how this actually plays out.