I'm a rules tinkerer. I've been so since 2001 and my introduction to the hobby. It feels like so long ago, yet I see people around here who have been playing for 10, 20, and almost 30 years longer than me. Whenever I look at anything, I wonder "could this be made better?". With a hobby like ours, "better" is a very personal term; what's better for me and my group might not be better for you and yours.
Without letting this thread bog down too much on debating each rule (try to keep comments to "I like that" and constructive criticism; "I don't like that" doesn't further a discussion, but "I think that could lead to unbalance with X, you might want to keep an eye on it" is helpful), list the house rules you're considering. While we haven't seen the entirity of the full game, we've seen a lot from the previews (the list of classes and specialities was among the biggest for me).
Without further adieu, here's mine:
- Add Con score to starting HP; I think HP are too low at first level, and my group doesn't like 1 hit kills being so prevelant. We're going to run the Starter Set without this rule (instead having a table agreement of tactfully ignoring character death's and party wipes if they come to pass), but I very much think it will go into effect.
- Move the "Oath of the Ancients" Warden build of the paladin over to the Barbarian. I'd like the Barbarian to have a spellcasting subclass, utilizing select druid spells, so they can join in the multiclassing fun too. It will take a lot to find a way to balance it, though, and they'd probably focus on buffs before raging since rage disables spells.
- Explore a way to let "Way of the Four Elements" Monks contribute to multiclass spellcasters. (As you can see, I like multiclassing and the way 5E is handling spellcasters).
- I'm thinking of splitting feats into 2 and giving out feats and ability score increases. These would go to monsters and NPCs too, so it shouldn't skew the balance much. I just feel like low level characters are going to take the boring ability boosts, and high level characters will pick up a few feats once they run out of abilities they want to boost.
- Proficiency for all Saves. This is a tough one, but I think all characters need to get proficiency with all saves. As it stands now, with an average stat of 12-13, a non-proficient save is going to start out at level 1 as +1 against a DC of around 13 (45% chance of succeeding) and expanding to potentialy +1 against a DC of 19 (a 15% chance of succeeding). I'm willing to check the math on this, as HP growth might account for this, but when there are "save or sucks" and a few "save or dies", HP don't matter. I'd likely replace existing proficiencies with flat +2 bonuses, and increase save DCs to 10+Proficiency+Stat ("proficiency with saves" is just an odd word for me).
What are yours?
Tossing any and all attribute minimums.
I think I would award the Resilient feat for free, as well as a choice between Mage Slayer and War Caster for free. Even though I don’t like house rules, I like feat taxes even less.
Are there enough people who wouldn’t take those feats that I am mistaken about them being feat taxes?
Overpromises wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
When I get a chance to run the Starter Set, I'm just going to run it straight. No house rules.
When I get the DMG and can see what's in there as options, I'll work on building my own homebrew campaign. Some house rules I'll consider, assuming they're not in the DMG:
- Wild Magic Sorcerer: the chance of triggering a surge is equal to the spell slot level used, so if you cast a 9th level spell, you trigger a surge if you roll 1-9 on the d20. The idea is that the more powerful the magic effect is, the harder it is to control.
NB. I've been playing an alpha wild mage sorcerer, and my biggest complaint is that I hardly ever get a surge; the final rules, with the change to Tides of Chaos, may make them occur more frequently, but that depends entirely on the DM. - Hit Points: I'll consider giving PCs extra HPs at 1st level, but I want to see how things play out RAW first.
- Divine Magic: I'm considering letting clerics (and possibly paladins) full access to their spell lists. They'd still be limited by their spell slots per day, but they wouldn't have to prepare anything ahead of time. They just call on their deity for whatever spell they need at the time.
NB. I may extend this to wizards by allowing them to spontaneously cast any spell of their speciality school but I'm not sure yet. - Ramzour's Class Defining Abilities System: I'd like to implement something like this.
- Inspiration: I'm thinking I might swap out the "advantage on a single d20 roll" benefit for Inspiration and replace it with receiving a single Plot Twist Card that must be used before the end of the session.
There may be a few other things but I can't think of anything else at the moment.
Overpromises wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Well, since you seem to think that not everybody would take such a feat, I guess that answers my question and it’s not actually a feat tax. 
Something I might try (based on my group's experience with Fate games using the Deck of Fate) would be to use a deck of tarot cards instead of a d20, with a five-card hand, two suits counted as their face value, two suits counted as their face value +10, face cards being criticals, major arcana being their face value and 'something weird happens', and no drawing new cards until your hand is empty except as follows. Advantage would let you draw another card before playing one, disadvantage would require you to play your highest card and draw another and use the lower of the two. Reshuffle whenever a major arcana card is played.
My group liked the strategic decisions that came with having to manage their high and low cards in Fate vs. being completely random, and I enjoyed the details they came up with to explain dumping their low cards into non-essential actions.
Yeah. I honestly do not foresee the whole concept of a "feat tax" ever creeping into this edition. Not in the sense that it has been defined in the past (required to fix math or maintain balance).
pukunui wrote:
The ones I'm thinking of are not so much houserules as "stuff I don't want to bother with" or "make these tiny details work like my players are used to", and include:
- Recover all HD on long rest
- Ignore ammunition counts (unless I specifically tell the players otherwise... usually for "cinematic" reasons)
- Ignore non-consumed material costs for spells (anything that gets used up still counts, and casting a ritual still requires whatever components listed)
- Let Ready An Action not consume a reaction. In fact, just treat Ready An Action like a simple banked action. If the condition never comes to pass, the player doesn't lose any resource. When the action triggers, it gets resolved and the player goes back to their normal initiative order.
- Ignore spell preperation times... but obviously not allow a new spell to be prepared during combat (or other time-sensitive moments, as conditions arise)
- I might let players point buy a starting ability score of 16 (cost: 12), as long as its not an ability they get a +2 racial bonus to.
- Allow players to spend two HD to max out the healing on one (eg. a wizard spends two hit die to regain 6+ConMod HP... on average a poorer choice than rolling, but gives the players an opportunity to trade overall healing for assured healing)
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Akeisha wrote:
I plan on chaging the saves to better of Con or Str, better of Dex or Int, and Better of Wis or Cha. (much like 4e defenses or a F/R/W setup, but not like how 3e did it) right out of the gate. I am displeased with the focus of saves (from what I've seen, of course) on mostly 3 ability scores (con, dex, wis). I might just try to do 4e defenses, where attacker always rolls and there pretty much are no 'saves'. But that could get too annoying when dealing with monsters...
I will also let 1st level PC's start with double HP, or add their Con score to their standard starting HD. (eg: a wizard with a 14 con would have 14+6 HP at 1st level, not 2+6 HP; but 1d6+2 from then on). We're still debating which will fit better at the table when we finally sit down to play 5e, lol.
I might get rid of some spell DoaM, ie: half with successful save. That's just not fair to us, especually after playing 4e for its whole run.
Other than that, I'm just waiting until November. Then our group and I can actually see the 5e books, and (hopefully) the finished free Basic PDF to make a decision as to if this is going to be a thing to play for years, or not.
Overpromises wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
I'd like to try out Lawolf's guidelines for Inspirational Stunts. I really wanna encourage the players to think outside of the box with DDN, encourage them to use their imagination more and not worry over-much about this or that rule (we got bogged down a few times in other games). I'm most happy as DM when I can say "Let's see what happens" 
.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
I'd have to see what's different before I start my usual ripping apart of game mechanics and reassembling them Lego style. But there's one or two I'd like to try.
Well, I'd bring back the Playtest version of the Great Weapon Fighter power for the classes that uses the feature, strength damage on a miss (you pick a two handed weapon because you want to do damage, at all times. And anything that helps is usually what you want.)
Second, adding Strength Bonus to AC of Heavy Armour (I'll have to see what the various to hits that the monsters have, to make sure this doesn't break too much.) because Light Armour was still the best, most defensive method for most of the entire playtest.
Thirdly, and this is more me feeding a personal conciet than trying to improve something I see as deficient (and it's something only I see) is implement an Armour as Damage Reduction across the board, with some sort of scaling defense bonus, so that you're not reliant on heavy armour to better dodge damage. (It also makes Swashbucklers, as much as I hate them, a little more viable as a concept. Something D&D has never really done to my satisfaction. And often used a lot of rules mangling to try and make it fit.)
Big reply post: I'm using spoiler tags to make it more user friendly for everyone else.
CCS wrote:
I've been mulling the whole house rules idea over and so far I think I will go with the following:
1 - Slightly better attributes for starting characters. I will probably go +1 to all the scores in the standard array (rounding up instead of down, if my math is correct). Alternately I will allow the players to roll their characters' stats, but then use the best set of rolls that any one player comes up with as an array.
2 - Reduce short rest time to a base of 15 minutes. I would like to see a short rest every 1 to 3 combat encounters rather than 1 or 2 times per day. To me, that pushes play-style back in the direction of 4E's default assumption that the PCs are heroes from the get-go, rather than the resource management style of earlier editions. Ultimately whether or not the PCs can take a "short rest" or "long rest" will be determined by me, the DM, rather than an imaginary clock.
3 - I am debating starting characters at 3rd level. Really, the heroes will blow through 1st and 2nd level in one session each, so I am on the fence about this one.
4 - All Hit Dice are recovered on a long rest.
5 - Ignoring the cost of material components. This is all unnecessary book-keeping.
6 - Adding some cantrips that are a lot like 4E's at-will area spells/powers. I am thinking of adding stuff like Freezing Burst, Scorching Burst, Blazing Starfall, Vanguard's Lightning, and so on. Basically they would all cover a 10-foot cube, do about 1d6 (save for none) with the damage going up normally, all with some kind of rider or additional effect. For example, Freezing Burst slides the target 10 feet or knocks them prone, Scorching Burst leaves the area ablaze, doing 1d4 fire damage if those in the area end their turn there, Blazing Starfall hems them in, doing 1d4 fire if the targets try to leave the area, Arc Lightning zaps two targets, and so on. That way they keep the "flavor" of the originals, but with damage and effects in-line with the new edition. By themselves, they likely won't do enough damage to kill most level-appropriate foes, but they will weaken them enough for the caster's allies to take them out with one less attack.
That's about it so far. This is all subject to how things go in regular play.
My house-rules so far.
1. The short rest is only 5 minutes long.
2. New Martial Weapon: Heavy Spear - 1d8 damage, Versatile (reach)
3. Base level is 3.
4. When rolling for hit points, if you roll below half-plus-one on the die, take half-plus-one instead. Do not roll for HP when making a character above 1st level.
5. Generic monsters always deal static damage (double on a crit). Only special (i.e., named) enemies roll for damage.
6. Long rest restores all hit dice.
I'm also working on developing my custom races for use in the 5e ruleset.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
What I mean by player agency, and I really picked the wrong term to use actually, is that the player doesn't have the mini game of choosing their spells; they just have them all. That very situation doesn't come up, which means the situation of having just the right spell prepped doesn't come up either. I also think it's a huge boost in power to Clerics, who I don't feel really need it. Similarly, I think it also requires a cleric player to know about all the spells, instead of just knowing how the ones they prepped work.
If I were to go with a spontaneous casting cleric, I'd have to reduce their numbers of spells known, like how the Bard and Sorcerer work.
pukunui wrote:
1. I don't like the Concentration rules as written, so that's out. I am going with a modified 1E gold box version instead where if you take damage prior to your turn in a round you have to make a Concentration check to cast a spell.
2. I like spells that scale with caster level, so I am thinking about adding in a small bonus based on that. Something along the lines of 1 HP / 2 caster leves up to 1 HP/ caster level, depending on the spell. This all depends on Monster HP when the MM comes out though.
3. I am having the PCs roll for HPs as they level up, except at 2nd level they get the result of their roll or the alternative value in the PHB, whichever is greater.
4. Wizards can't wear armor. I really despise that rule.
5. If the campaign runs long enough, I will probably add Spell Resistance for appropriate mobs.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Clansmansix wrote:
I like the slow healing on only regaining hp when you spend Hit Dice, even after a long rest. So you regain half your HD, heal, but have no HD left. And then need to rest another day or two to be able to adventure at 100%.
I'm working on a compel house rule for inspiration, where I can prompt my players to make use of their flaws with inspiration (rather than letting them choose when to RP their flaw).
I'm thinking about lowering the point buy to allow everyone to take a feat at 1st level.
I have 10 tweeks, written out already for my players along with my justifications. I have only seen Basic, so this subject to change of course. I don’t think any of them affect game balance much, but would welcome criticism in case I missed some consequence.
#1: For ability/skill checks (but not attacks or saves): Raise the DC by 10 and add ability score instead of ability modifier to the roll.
Why?
Give odd ability scores some importance. Or ability scores in general.
Differentiate characters, NCPs, and monsters more based on strengths and weaknesses.
Not overly complicated, and if anything makes more sense to new players who may be confused by the presence of the ability scores when only the modifier seems to matter.
#2: Divide athletics into: jump, climb, swim, and grapple. Any feature granting proficiency in athletics, you instead pick one.
Why?
There is no reason someone can’t play a strong, sumo-style character who is a good grappler but not necessarily an Olympic-class high-jumper. Or a specifically good swimmer.
#3: Divide thieves’ tools into lockpicks and trap kit. Any feature granting proficiency in thieves’ tools instead grants proficiency in the player’s choice of the following: lockpicks, trap kit, forgery kit, poisoner’s kit, or disguise kit.
Why?
Thieves’ kit are too powerful.
There’s not any realistic overlap between picking locks and disarming traps.
It’s fun to be able to specialize (ie expertise in lockpicks if a player wants to be a master locksmith).
Creates incentive for a rogue to pick a criminal background. As is, a criminal rogue is nerfing himself because of a redundant tool proficiency.
#4: With any melee or thrown weapon, a character or monster can choose str or dex to modify the attack roll (still only with finesse weapons can you use dex for damage).
Why?
For those who really want to play a dex fighter with hammers or a big sword.
Characters have a little more flexibility with their secondary weapon. For example look at the pregen archer who's hamstringing himself by using a great sword instead of a rapier.
#5: With a longbow, short bow, sling, or thrown weapon, a character or monster can choose str or dex to modify the damage roll.
Why?
Symmetry with #4.
Allows str fighters to be slightly better when they have to pick up bows.
Some realism, because strength can add to the velocity of an arrow or stone.
#6: Intelligence reduces time (and money) it takes to learn a tool proficiency or language. Each point over 10 decreases the days/gold it takes by 10. Each point under 10 intelligence adds 10 days/gold required.
Why?
Give a reason to play a smart character of any class.
Realism.
#7: Critical hits rules revert to playtest rules. Natural 20s are automatic hits, deal max damage, and one extra die of weapon damage. Optional: make this extra damage die an exploding die.
Why?
Gives the greataxe some small advantage over the greatsword and maul which are currently much better for everyone (except perhaps high level barbarians).
If using exploding die option, makes for more exciting, deadly combat.
#8: Any armor that incurring stealth disadvantage also grants disadvantage to jump, climb, swim, and acrobatics checks.
Why?
Realism.
The thought of someone in plate mail swimming and jumping and climbing unencumbered is goofy.
#9: Ability score increases are +1 to two ability scores. There is no longer the option of adding +2 to one.
Why?
Encourage diversity.
Diminish the assumption that everyone will max out their prime stat.
#10: Recover all hit dice on a long rest, but no hit points (unless you use remaining hit dice). Grittier option: regain only one hit die per long rest.
Why?
Actually simpler. Half level round down is cumbersome (especially for a 1st level character…)
Steerpike84 wrote:
My group has houseruled in max damage crits instead of double damage. I loved the idea so much from the playtest, I was sad to see it turn back to a multiplier.
A Major Injury houserule:
If an enemy hits a PC with a natural 20, they make a second attack roll to confirm the crit. If the second attack roll indicates a hit against the characters AC, the target recieves a major injury. If the confirm roll fails, the attacks still does double damage. Major injuries are things like broken arms or concussions, and give penalties like disadvantage on ability checks or reduced move speed until healed. Healing a lasting injury requires either 5 days bed rest, or strong healing magic. Any healing magic capable of restoring 30 HP can remove a major injury, as can a greater restoration spell or regeneration.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Ranged weapon attacks fired or thrown into melee where an ally (or allies) is within 5 feet of your target may hit an ally on an attack roll resulting in a natural 1.
If a d20 'confirmation' roll meets or exceeds your ally's AC (base AC, with no AC or attack modifiers applied) then your ally takes weapon damage. A natural 20 on the 'confirmation' roll indicates a critical hit on your ally. Doh!
Otherwise, after about 8 sessions, my group and I have been happy with RAW so far.
pukunui wrote:
To the OP. Switching the warden subclass over to the barbarian might cause balance issues. for some reason wizards decided not to have all subclasses follow the same pattern. Before you move a subclass over you should make sure it follows the same pattern otherwise you might have balance issues and dead levels. I do agree that the barbarian should of had a ragemage subclass.
Fallen_Star_02 wrote:
Akeisha wrote:
One of my favorite houserules is to add more abilies scores: Courage, Karma(luck), Astutennes and Technique (like Dex but for crafting, martial arts and playing music).
Overpromises wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Clansmansix wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
Someone suggested instead of a surprise round, giving the winning side a +10 to initiative and letting everyone act during the first round in initiative order. That is working out even better than eliminating the surprise round.
The second house rule is to have monsters do static average damage during low level games. That also is working out nicely.
Third, Raise Dead works without restrictions. But it sets the character to 0 hp and then the player most roll death saves according to the Rules As Written.
Nivek_Loneshadow wrote:
Fallen_Star_02 wrote:
I will run the game as written first to get a feel for it. But Fort, Ref and Will defenses are likely to make it into my house rules. I think something might have to be done about the variant human as well.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Steerpike84 wrote:
A house rule I'm implementing is addadive advantage. Simply put: Instead of having any disadvantage cancel out ALL advantage, it becomes a trump system: If you have more Advantage on a roll than Disadvantage, you still get the Advantage (and visa versa). So if I am gaining Advantage on a roll from two different effects, but Disadvantage from only one effect, then Adv trumps Dis and I get the extra die roll. In limited testing, it seems to encourage players to think more strategically even in situation where they have Disadvantage, and makes it so that the right hit at the right moment could still have Advantage, if circumstances were juuuussst right. [Still only one Adv dice though, regadless of number of Advs.]
Non-lethal take outs.
If a PC wants to incapacitate and not kill his opponent, he must state this before inflicting any damage on him, and ALL damage is halved. I've never liked the idea of being able to stab someone 5 times, and then just club them and assume they won't die becuase the last hit was 'gentler'.
Here is what I'll be using for my healing and injury house rules.
1) Short rest is reduced to 30 minutes. You can only spend 1 HD per 30 minutes of rest. Extended rest restores a number of HD equal to your con modifier (minimum 1) and restores you to 1 hp when at 0 or fewer hitpoints.
2) Medicine check allows a characters to spend an additional HD during a short rest, and after a Extended rest, being proficient in medicine allows you to distribute extra HD equal to your proficiency bonus between yourself and other characters (up to the recipients level in HD.)
3) I will be using a parred down set of Fate Core rules with Troubles Aspects to manage injuries, wounds, etc.