I've noted in a few threads that Kalani has pointed out that 'house rules' are not allowed in Adventurers League games. It's bugged me a bit that there isn't really a definition of what a 'house rule' is, which makes the sanction somewhat problematic to enforce -- how can you say if a particular thing is or is not a house rule if you don't know what a house rule is? So rather than hijack one of those threads, I thought I'd give us a thread to discuss what is and isn't a house rule.
One thing I'm confident isn't a house rule: a DM interpretation of a rule in the Player's Handbook or other allowed rules source is never a house rule, no matter how many times that interpretation is enforced.
The reasoning behind this is simple -- the ALPG notes that a DMs ruling at the table is final for that session. A DM who feels consistency is important and doesn't find any reason to change her ruling is likely to make the same ruling in the same situation during a different session. If there was a set number of sessions after which a DM ruling became a house rule, then at that point the DMs ruling would no longer be final -- it would become a prohibited house rule and the DM would have to come up with a different ruling, which would contradict the advice that the DMs ruling at the table is always final for that session.
Another thing that I'm confident isn't a house rule: a DM interpretation of a rule in the Player's Handbook or other allowed rules source that isn't shared by anyone else at the table.
Again, the explanation is simple -- if players could simply declare by unanimous vote that they disagree with the DM's interpretation of a rule, then players would have effective veto power over DM rulings, in contradiction to the ALPG rule that the DM's ruling is always final for the session. An unpopular ruling cannot be declared a house rule in order to bring AL admin power to bear over an individual DM's unpopular ruling -- players who have a serious issue with DM rulings should bring those concerns to the local organizer, store owner, or other person in charge of organizing the DMs at that play venue.
One possible grey area: a DM is making a house rule if she interprets a rule that doesn't appear to require interpretation or goes against what could be considered the plain meaning in the rules source.
On one hand, this is the obvious way to handle the infamous 'DM allows longswords to do 2d10 damage' argument that seems to be brought up every time we discuss DM empowerment -- if the PH unambiguously says longswords do 1d8 (or 1d10 when wielded in two hands), then that's what they do and for the DM to say differently is an illegal house rule.
The problem I have with this definition is simply this: who decides whether a rule is sufficiently clear not to require interpretation? Weapon damage would seem to be a fairly obvious example of a rule that doesn't require interpretation, but that's only when the weapon is being used as intended -- what happens when a character drops a longsword onto an enemy's head from 100 feet above? Does it still only do 1d8 damage, or can the DM adjudicate a different damage result, or even rule the enemy is instantly killed? I'd argue that the latter makes more sense -- the DM should have the authority to specify how much damage a weapon does when it isn't being used as expected. But that just shines a light on how deep the rabbit hole goes, because now we have another definitional question -- who decides when a rules element isn't being used 'as expected'? It has to be the DM, because no one else at the table has that authority.
Basically, it's really hard to come up with a definition of a house rule that doesn't start to resemble the legal definition of obscenity -- I can't tell you, but I know it when I see it. And if the definition has to be that vague, then it's not very helpful to have a hard-and-fast rule that this incredibly vague thing isn't allowed in AL.
Any other thoughts?
--
Pauper
The term house rule is just not really a good one, but in the context of AL, I disagree with your premise that "a DM's ruling is final for a sessions, so that can never be a house rule". Because, dictionary definition and historical terminology basis notwithstanding, what people MEAN when they refer to something as a house rule is: "In my view the DM is breaking the rules with this ruling". It gets worse if a DM consistantly ruling that way despite "evidence" she is wrong. in AL the DM is the house, and rulings she makes multiple tables, that deviate from the rules . Those are house rules.
Sure, we could use a better term for it as the non AL use of house rules tends to be very different. But I do not feel it confusing enough to put effort into coming up with a different wording. Although the terms "illegal rule" or "wrong rule" work 
Of course, all of that is seriously hampered by the fact that a rule needs to be set in stone before deviation can be called anything but a DM's call. And most of the people crying "HOUSE RULE!!!!11!" may be convinced their interpretation is holy gospel. Doesn't make it so
tldr: You will never get any consensus on this.
Example House Rules
- a 2d10 longsword is a house rule, as the printed rule says longswords do 1d8 (versatile 1d10).
- A finesse longsword (katana) is a house rule, as longswords don't have the finesse property.
- A rule where Elves, dragonborn, feats, or variant humans are banned at the table are house rules - because the ALPG specifically allows these options.
- Creating new rules options for characters, such as new spells, feats, subclasses, classes, races, etc.
- Allowing characters to play aarakocra (as they are explicitly banned in AL).
- Allowing a Tyranny of Dragons character to choose an EE spell during level advancement as one of their "free" spells.
- Denying a Tyranny of Dragons character from copying an EE spell into their spellbook from another character/scroll.
- Allowing a character to ignore disadvantage due to the blinded condition (without a special ability saying otherwise).
- Changing the features, attacks, or abilities of monsters. Spells are allowed providing they are of the same level and class.
- Changing which monsters occur in an encounter - such as swapping guards for assassins. This has been stated on the dndal website as something DMs are not allowed to do.
Altering the number of monsters in an encounter is a DM ruling (and should be done only for the purpose of maintaining difficulty based on party size, and level).
Example Rulings
- A DM determining that you gain advantage on a single check due to the circumstances - that is a ruling.
- A DM determining that ammunition requires a free hand was a ruling (pre-errata) as it is something the rules did not cover. Post-errata, a DM handwaiving this requirement is making a house rule (as it deviates from the printed rules/errata).
- A DM determines that a creature is distracted, and that you can remain "hidden" within line of sight - is a ruling (esp. post-errata), as DMs determine if/when characters can maintain stealth when behind less than total cover/concealment.
- A DM allows you to treat an arcane staff as an improvised quartertstaff is a ruling (as per Improvised weapon rules). Gaining proficiency bonus to attack rolls with an improvised quarterstaff is likewise a DM ruling (except in the case of a character with Tavern Brawler), that they can allow/deny on a case-by-case basis.
- Determining if you have cover in theatre of mind.
- DM determining which skill check to use, and setting the DC
- DM adjudicating what skills are required to vault down a flight of stairs, and any situational advantage/disadvantage involved (eg. make an acrobatics check, if you succeed you gain advantage on your attack roll - failure results in you landing prone and taking 1d6 falling damage).
- A DM allows you to treat an arcane staff as an improvised quartertstaff is a ruling (as per Improvised weapon rules). Gaining proficiency bonus to attack rolls with an improvised quarterstaff is likewise a DM ruling (except in the case of a character with Tavern Brawler), that they can allow/deny on a case-by-case basis.
Kalani wrote:
Actually it would still be a house rule to allow it to deal 2d10 if dropped as there are rules which cover this (although not explicitly)
- Improvised ranged weapon (1d4)
- Falling damage (which applies even if somwthing falls on you). This would mean 4d6 damage. I would see a DM ruling the damage is piercing instead of bludgeoning and would also suspect the target be able to make a dex save for half.
A DM is within their power to rule that the attack is an automatic critical if it hits, but I would also rule it is made at disadvantage or that the character could make a dex save for half.
Regarding the falling longsword:
I'd generally rule that an unaware character is hit automatically and that an aware character makes a DEX save at advantage to take no damage or half on a failure (a sword is a relatively small falling object in terms of a creature's space). Auto hit is piercing, failed save is slashing.
But that's kinda off topic.
Proposed definition of a House Rule: Any rule proposed or used by the DM at the table that changes the text of the Rules as written or distorts the intent of the Rules as written (as generally accepted by the community at large, or as indicated by WotC sources). Any DM decision regarding a situation not covered by the Rules is considered to be a ruling, even if the DM uses that ruling as a rule at their table.
For me, the distinction between House Rules and Rulings is less about wrangling over interpretations of text in the book and more about in-play context. Both presume you're making some departure from how the players expect or understand the game to work (nobody thinks "a fireball does fire damage" to be a ruling in the way we usually use the word, because everybody expects that to be the case).
Basically, when you say "X works like this because of the situation specific to this game, in this moment, telling this story." you're issuing a ruling.
When you way "X works like this all the time, regardless of in-game context." you're making a house-rule.
The falling sword example is a ruling, because it's an in-game application meant to adjudicate what's happening at this very moment.
"Pact Magic doesn't give you spell slots." is a houserule, because it has no relationship to the specifics of a game, and makes an a priori assertion about how the game works.
If everybody at the table believes that "dropped swords work this way" or "Pact Magic works this way", then you've neither made a ruling nor a house rule...you're just playing the game.
CahPahkah wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
...I already said that?
CahPahkah wrote:
Gotcha...got confused by the block quoting. Totally agree.
Technically, a houserule could be completely legal, in regards to the AL's guideline to follow the PHB rules just like a ruling could be completely AL legal. However, a houserule could be completely illegal just like a ruling. We're just trying to create a situation where one is good and the other is bad by somehow altering the definition of the terms.
Before I start.... I want to point out that what *we* think is a House Rule isn't as important as what AL thinks is a House Rule, since they are the ones that have disallowed them.
But moving on....
For purposes of AL, I tend to think of a House Rule the same as Kalani, meaning a consistent rule or ruling that breaks a rule of the game.
But.... there are some weird cases.
The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I don't consider house rules inherrently negative. Some of them may in fact be superior to the rules as written. However, in the context of the AL - house rules are simply prohibited (regardless of whether they are positive or negative rules).
Whether a house rule is good/bad is based on the subjective interpretation of the rule. House rules that are additive and were designed with game balance in mind are generally of a positive nature. House rules that are unbalanced, and house rules that restrict a player (fairly or no) tend to be viewed negatively.
Homebrew content are houserules as well - as they are not found in the official printed products. 3PPs are also house rules by the losest definition (as they are another companies content).
With that in mind, they are not inherrently negative. Regardless, they are prohibited in this format.
Coredump00 wrote:
I jam getting more and more uncomfortable with the definition of House Rule used here. House Rules have been a part of D&D for longer than some of us have been alive. And have been a force for good and fun for many parties and campaigns.
Additionally Coredump gave a few examples (the advantage/disadvantage ones) that totally qualify as house rules since they are applied consistantly at their table, but that are in no way illegal under AL rules. (and I will contain myself and not adress the reintroduction of flanking in a system that allows unthreathened movement around an opponent...oops..ehm.. ) So the term House Rules just does no cover what is being addressed,
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I agree that there should be better phrasing than "house rule" to describe the behavior that is disallowed. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but I'm sure y'all can argue it out [endlessly 
].
I also don't like the term "illegal character" in the FAQ document about the PHB errata. It's really not the character that's illegal, it's merely an option or two that the player has selected. An aarakocra is an illegal character; your monk merely needs to select a different 11th level option (for example).
To be clear, I have no hidden agenda with these questions. I can't think of a definition for House Rule that I am comfortable with in this (AL) setting. I am just exploring the options to hightlight the difficulties.
The only thing I can think of that comes close is "House Rule: A rule or consistent ruling that either breaks a rule or transforms the game in a way it was not intended to play." (Gee... elegant huh...)
Pre-errata: I felt the rules were already sufficient to disallow dual handbows. But... it was obviously not explicit. So to me, if a DM decided that dual handbows were allowed, or were not allowed.... I didn't see that as a problem. But technically.....either one of those is a "House Rule"....which are not legal in AL. Technically a DM would have to decide each time on a case by case basis. But if a DM always makes the same ruling....isn't that a House Rule?
The simplest definition as it applies in this instance would be:
- A DM rule that changes the rules as written.
If it doesn't add/remove/alter a printed rule, it is a ruling not a house rule.
Allowing dual wield handbows (or handbow+shield) was a ruling (pre-errata). Allowing it post errata is a house-rule (as it changes the rules as written). Interpreting the rules as written is a DM ruling. Altering them is making a houserule.
Can I deal 2d10 damage with a longsword?
- Yes, but only on a critical hit when wielded in two hands.
If your DM allows you to deal 2d10 damage in any other situation, it is a house rule as it is altering a printed rule (the damage of a longsword).
A DM allowing a character to gain situational advantage (or disadvantage) is making a ruling - as this option is clearly presented in the rules as an option. Even if they make a consistent ruling regarding advantage/disadvantage - this is not a house rule, as they are simply following the rules for ad-hoc advantage/disadvantage.
If the rules did not state that DMs were allowed to grant ad-hoc advantage/disadvantage, any DM which did so would be house ruling.
Kalani wrote:
True, the term "house rule" existed prior to 5E... However the term "ruling" is new, and is implied to be distinct from a house rule. While the use of a house rule is also a ruling, rulings themselves involve interpreting the RAW and making a decision. They could also include house rules (new/modified/substituted rules) in the process of making said ruling, but such is not required.
As such, I like to think of it this way.
- A House Rule is a Game Rule that comes from a third-party source (whether another company, or the DMs own homebrew materials), and is compared against the RAW (which are game rules from the primary products).
- A ruling is any decision in which the DM interprets one or more rules (regardless of whether said rules are RAW or house rules) and makes an in-game decision based upon them.
To put it another way:
All house rules are rulings.
Not all rulings are house rules.
Kalani wrote:
They are illegal because the admins have said they are illegal. DMs are given a lot of empowerment in 5E. In AL, the line is drawn at making any ruling which contradicts the RAW, the ALPG, or the FAQ, or which introduces new rules elements not found in the RAW (eg. custom feats, classes, etc).
In respect to interpreting the RAW - DMs are free to use any empowerment baked into the rules - such as the ability to make ad hoc rulings for situational advantage/disadvantage and the like. Either way, this argument is accademic. House rules are prohibited. Interpreting the RAW is fine.
Kalani wrote:
house rules are those rules which are generally not published, and not automatically accepted as a balanced rule. Additionally, organizations that regulate characters in a larger group of players ban all outside house rules, but tend to establish a few internal house rules based on participant feedback, voting, and concensus. Super strict organizations are known to treat (and ban) even well established optional rules, such as character classes or races not in the first core books, spells published in later campaign settings, and magical items outside the DMG.
Because DM power can be redefined as "house rules, which are inadimissible for X organization", it can be very sketchy outlining exactly which rules are considered "Core". Unfortunately, this also empowers anyone who absolutely loves whichever core edition you are dealing with (2e, 3e, 3..5e, 4e.. etc.) but can make the game miserable for people who prefer optional rules or classes/races/etc. less popular or not popular enough to make it in the first few books.
This thread makes me happy.
Its about time someone else realized houserule was an inadequate term.
Especially in a game that favors consistent DM rulings when it comes to any precedents that DM has created.
shintashi wrote:
shrug? It was hard to follow and seemed to meander along different trains of thought. I think the general gist is the fact that OP campaigns tend to have their own internal House Rules - which is true. Many of the FAQ entries could be considered AL "house rules", as they only apply to this campaign; as does the banning of aarakocra, or the fact characters must use point buy/standard array
FrogReaver wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
AL has not given it a negative term, nor have they redefined it. They have simply said that - DMs are not allowed to house rule in order to maintain a certain level of consistency and expectation across all tables.
The reason is transparent and neutral. It is people who want to house rule who see the reason as being negative.
Unlike 3.x and 4e - DMs have a lot of empowerment baked into the system. With few exceptions, AL has not limited DME that is written in the rules. They draw the line at making changes to the rules.
Situational advantage/disadvantage on a case by case basis - perfectly fine. Constant advantage if you meet X condition (eg flanking) goes beyond rulings and into exploitable rules.
If the DM is no longer needed in order to benefit from X - it is a rule, not a ruling.
Kalani wrote:
Sadly, in 5E it is a slippery slope. Hiding is a good example in which DM judgement comes into play and could easily be expeidiated if minor house rules were allowed. The problem therein, lies in the fact on where the line is drawn. Some DMs would see introducing new weapons, armor, and equipment which have a mechanical effect on the game as being "minor". Others would consider this a departure from the rules, or may consider some weapon combinations OK, but others (such as a d8 finesse katana, versatile d10) being OP. Yet other DMs would have no problem with a flanking mechanic, while others would balk against it because variant rules from the DMG are prohibited.
You see the inherrent problems. If the admins allow "some" house rules, it quickly devolves into a game where any house rule could be justified in the right situations. As such, the line is drawn at making rulings for situations the rules do not cover (or are baked into the system, such as the case with hiding), and that those rulings only last for the duration of the current session.
House Rules are not inherrently negative. It depends on the rule on a case by case basis. But in this instance, it is an either/or option - either house rules are allowed, or they aren't.
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I can't tell if you are purposely avoiding my direct questions, of if you just missed them.
Based on this:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
So let me see if I get this.
I can, within the AL rules, maintain a consistant ruling across all tables i run, concerning situations that repeatedly pop up in games. For instance, if four or more creatures are in melee combat with the same opponent they are granted advantage on their attack rolls.
This ruling is within my purview as a DM, I can legally make this ruling at an AL table whenever the situation occurs in game.
Yet, if I refer to this as a house rule, which it is, it becomes illegal?
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
The term "house rule" is not specifically used in any of the documentation. It has been used on FB however, and has been implied in various documents (but not by those specific terms).
DMing & DM EmpowermentSimilarly, DMs are expected generally to run D&D Adventurers League adventures as written. DMs who create their own rules and who depart from the text of adventures significantly destroy the common experience of the game and the portability of characters.
In a home game, a DM can freely depart from the rules and the text of an adventure without destroying the experience for their players. However, in organized play, players find it unfair when their characters cannot do what other characters did. They get angry and complain when their DM imposes restrictions that do not limit other characters or when their DM makes them face risks that other characters in the same situation did not face. They also get angry and complain when they hear other DMs gave other players and characters opportunities and wealth that are not generally available to everyone. Therefore, in the D&D Adventurers League, DMs are required to follow the rules and generally to run adventures as they are written.
The Documentation lists examples of what is acceptable and what isn't. Flanking (as defined in the DMG) is not acceptable, as it is specifically listed as an optional / variant rule. Anything similar is just flanking by another name and would be equally prohibited.
As a general rule - if it is a ruling that would only affect the characters for the length of a single action (such as the chandelier example quoted above), it is probably within the realms of DME. If it is something that has wide application, and would affect the characters a majority of the time (or even a sizable minority of the time) - chances are it borders on a rule. A flanking like mechanic is such an example, as it would affect the characters in most combats.
While very effective as a way to avoid the actual question, focusing on the example of flanking like mechanics (which imho do not work if the system allows unthreathened movement in close combat) detracts from the issue. I do not think anyone actually asked about flanking and what equates flanking. I appreciate people's need or desire to educate, but every now and then one might choose to operate on the principle that others know this game at least as well?
so again:
Do the AL rules prohibit me from making a repeatable, consistent ruling on things that the AL puts in my purview?
As a DM I can make a ruling on wether action X provides the player with advantage, but if I consistently rule action X causes advantage, I will be creating a house rule. But my actions will be well within the AL rules. So what is it? Legal or illegal? Will I need to once every so often rule action X does not work to gain advantage just to avoid being consistent and creating a house rule?
edit - reread my own words so to make sure: not saying anyone is actively avoiding the question, its just not getting answered. Important distinction.
Kalani wrote:
This conversation is circular. The admins, and RCs both have said on several occasions that house rules are prohibited (using those words). Believe it or not, that's your call. I have no reason to lie (nor am I saying anyone is accusing me of such), and have little to gain. The point still stands that deviating from the RAW is by definition a house rule; and DMs are not allowed to deviate from the RAW (as highlighted in the above quoted passages upthread).
The RAW does give DMs a lot of leeway when it comes to making rulings however. In an OP setting, this is both a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand, OP DMs have been straightjacketed in past editions resulting in canny players running roughshod over the game, with little recourse. The 5E ruleset largely prevents such abuses from occuring on the player side - but at the same token, opens itself up to abuse from unscrupulous DMs on a powertrip -who can justify almost anything as being DME, regardless of how it impacts the game, the characters, or the players enjoyment.
As with all aspects of the program, this comes down largely to a Trust Exercise, with DMs being entrusted to maintain the spirit of the rules, and to only make small rulings as required for the situation.
If a ruling isn't required (in order to resolve a scenario which has occured), DMs should probably refrain from making any ruling.
Such is the case in respect to flanking situations (and a host of other scenarios) - as the game runs perfectly well in such situations, without any additional rules/rulings being introduced.
If a ruling is required (such as in the case for a chandelier assault) - the DM is free to make a decision based on their judgement. A ruling for rulings sake or just because it suits the DMs playstyle, should be avoided IMO. Rulings should only be made when required, and should always be made in the best interests of preserving the spirit of the game, and the enjoyment of all participants.
In any event, I see little reason to continue this circular discussion any further and so I will bow out of further discourse, unless something new is raised.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Based on the conversation (which is really good, btw -- kudos to the community on this one!), it seems to me that the most accurate definition of 'house rule' we can come up with is actually this one:
A 'house rule' is a rule created by the Adventurers League administration in their role as 'campaign DMs' which govern how table DMs are expected to run Adventurers League games.
In this sense, it would be accurate that a table DM cannot create a 'house rule', because only the WotC/volunteer admins have the authority to do so. In effect, the ALPG, the FAQ, and other official AL resources are all 'house rules' for the Adventurers League campaign. (This also makes sense from a campaign perspective, since a DM running a home game is not obligated to follow any of the AL's rules -- they are 'house rules' for the AL campaign, not for all of D&D.)
What this doesn't do is answer imaginaryfriend's question: as an AL DM, I can consistently interpret a rule in a given way but never refer to it as a 'house rule'. The moment I agree that is is a 'house rule', then it becomes illegal, so as a DM, I simply assert that I never make 'house rules' and thus never fall foul of the ruling regarding 'house rules'. I simply have a consistent set of rulings that I make at all my AL tables, which is in no way illegal.
--
Pauper
I think I will start referring to my consistent rulings as "Domicile based mandatory suggestions"
Pauper wrote:
SilverStorm3 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Actually, regarding spellbooks - that is a developer rule that it is not a magic item. Some DMs feel that it is magical, but it doesn't explicitly say it is magical. Some spellbooks are enchanted true, but your average spellbook is simply a well-made book with expensive inks, full of arcane notation, sketches/drawings of correct posture and gestures, arcane symbology, and the correct usage and quantities of spell components, how they are used, the methods used to cast X or Y spell with them, and their requirements. It has more in common with a cook book or an automotive manual than it does with a magic item.
The fact that wizards then use those instructions in order to prepare and cast arcane spells is what gives people the impression that the spellbook itself is inherrently magical - but if such was the case, people could rip out pages of a spellbook and use those pages as spell scrolls... But then again, an instruction manual that teaches someone how to design, build, program and operate an AI machine is equally impressive.
As far as defining "necessary"
- Ask yourself this simple question: Does the game run smoothly without this rule/ruling?
If the answer is yes - it is an unnecessary rule. If the game grinds to a halt until such times as the DM makes a decision, it is necessary.
- Flanking - unnecessary
- Determining the DC for an ability check - necessary.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Sage Advice is a ruling. If what you are doing is explaining something that is vague or confusing, it is a ruling.
Unearthed Arcana is a house rule. If what you are doing is making something up to cover something you feel is completely missing from the rules, or in any way introduces something completely new, it is a house rule.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Coredump00 wrote: