D&D 5E Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves

[MNblockhead]

Are there any home rules that you or a DM you know have implemented that are based more on a pet peeve than game balance or campaign-setting/atmosphere reasons? Have you made capricious changes to a rule, just because the RAW annoys you? I don't mean capricious necessarily in a negative way, just something that makes the game less enjoyable for for the DM for some reason, so it is home-ruled away.

Often I find these situations are due to DMs that have experience in the real world with something that contrasts with how the game handles that thing. It bothers them so much, despite it being a fantasy game, that it ruins immersion or detracts from their fun running the game. It is kind of like how anyone who knows anything about firearms can't stand most depictions of them in TV shows and movies("Oh yeah, right, the gun shoots as you drop it down the stairs, ugh. OMG! Did he just call it a CLIP!!! What idiots write for this show!") or how seeing new-world constrictor snakes depicted as poisonous snakes in a show set in medieval Europe ruins a scene in a show where all the other fantastical elements don't.

Mine is torches. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a prick about them in my games. Sure, I can assume that the party is smart enough to hold the torch behind them instead of in front of them, but it had better be a darn large or well-ventilated dungeon to avoid the ill effects of smoke inhalation.

Magical light? No problem. Torches? Ugh. Get a lantern. Learn a cantrip.

One of those things I can't really justify bothering to care about. It is just a pet peeve.

You can do all manner of violence on the laws of physics, but bring a torch into a dungeon? Puh-leeeze.

Another example. When I was younger, in high school, I spent a two summers with the Student Conservation Association, living and working in national parks, including the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area in Idaho (living out of our back packs and what the rangers brought to our camp on llamas--awesome experience). When I returned to running my game, I started requiring hyper-realistic travel rules. I've long since grown out of that. Maybe there is hope that I'll grow out of my prejudice against torches in dungeons.

Anyone else have similar pet peeves or have had to deal with DMs who've had such pet peeves?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm very defensive about my changes but:

1) No monks. I just detest the idea that two people could spend the same amount of time trying to learn to fight, only one uses their bare hands and the other an actual weapon, and they end up with the same result. It's nota balance issue. It's not even a setting issue really, as I could fit monks in. I just am annoyed that this 'Kung Fu' class ever became a thing.
2) No hobbits. This isn't middle earth people. I love the good Professor as much as the next guy (or more), but stop being derivative.
3) My falling rules are a picture of baroque complexity because at the same time I'm trying to be a) lethal, so people don't shrug off falling, and b) nonlethal, so people can shrug off falling. It requires a good page or two to even describe how they work, so I won't here unless someone is interested.
4) "Chainmail": It's just 'mail'. And it's plate armor, not "plate mail". And 'studded leather' got thrown right off the table, darn it. Right now the bet is on how long I can go before I finally change the 'longsword' entry to 'arming sword', and convert 'bastard sword' to 'longsword'.
5) Oh, and my 5' step works 'backwards' of the raw, because you shouldn't be able to just step back and fire off an arrow while a guy is trying to poke you with a sharpened metal rod. So you can step in to a fight, but not out of it.
6) When a stirge lands on something it is not "grappling" with the target. It is "clinching" the target. The target may want to initiate a grapple to break the clinch, but the stirge has absolutely no interest in controlling the motion of the target. It just wants to hold on.

I could probably go on and on in this vein. I'm the king of making tons of fiddly little changes because some tiny detail of the rules annoys me.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm there with you on studded leather, though I allow it, as stupid as it is. Have you every watched Lindeybeige on YouTube?

Gauntlets, helmets, studded leather armour, and gold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI_KaOMu6ok

He's got a whole series on torches, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZqbGME5HY

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

1) Everyone is human. Even if your racial rules are not. Your physiology might reflect your racial rules (bulky human half-orcs, lithe human elves, stout dwarf humans) but it doesn't have to. No dragonborn.

• We got fed up of the fantasy races, especially with regards to world building. There are other races but they are either non-player characters or require discovery and DM consent to become PCs. No dragonborn because they're the main NPC race and are intended to remain alien, unknown.

2) Mages who practice SCIENCE get Foci, everyone else (natives/uncivilized) use spell component pouches. Each focus is unique to the practitioner, spell components require access to the wilds to replenish.

• We wanted to add both some character to magic, as well as some constraints, without making things too complicated. In this way, Scientists have the edge when they have access to their gizmos (foci) but need to retreat to the safety of academia (which is the backbone of their civilization) if said gizmos are damaged or lost. Likewise, everyone else (shamans, witches, natives and rest) who use spell component pouches have the edge when out in the wilds, but suffer if trapped within the walls of civilization.

3) Building on the above, copying spells from scrolls and spell books is easier for those of the same magical tradition. Likewise, libraries and places of learning are important tools for deciphering scrolls and spell books from other traditions.

• We wanted wizards to have access to more spells but also wanted to introduce a mechanical reason to visit libraries/consult scholars/visit places of learning, as well as better defining the difference between the two magical traditions.

4) Less of a rule change, more of a rule clarification: Players state their character's intent, then how they propose to realise said intent.

• Done in an effort to standardise player actions and minimize miscommunication during Theatre of the Mind style of play. Before, the DM might find themselves at a loss as to why a player declares their character is performing a certain action, typically due a mismatch between each player's mental representation of the play at the time. This way, the DM can work with a player to help realise their character's intent by providing additional information as and when required, and call for checks accordingly (rather than the player simply stating 'I use X skill).

 

[Ezequielramone]

I don't know how much is racional and how much is whim:
- No alignment, I have kick out and choose my players through years, they are the best my city has to offer, they can RP a complex character guided by a personality, not by a 2 axis morale system.
- If adv and disv apply at the same time you roll 3 dice and use the middle one.
- If your character is a dragonborn, have mustache or curly hair, he is going to die in the first session.
- You can use inspiration to reroll HP, you keep the best dice.
- if you speak about alignment you are going to die.

 

[Mecheon]

I'm very defensive about my changes but:

1) No monks. I just detest the idea that two people could spend the same amount of time trying to learn to fight, only one uses their bare hands and the other an actual weapon, and they end up with the same result. It's nota balance issue. It's not even a setting issue really, as I could fit monks in. I just am annoyed that this 'Kung Fu' class ever became a thing.

Never going to reach heaven by violence that way (Seriously, KSBD, good stuff, and Throne has almost eclipsed Sigil in terms of my favourite multiversal city. Plus, better angels than D&D has ever done)

My obsessions about rules aren't so much rules as they are descriptions of the animals and how they behave. Especially dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Velociraptor was feathered, pteranadon and quetzalcoatlus would break in half if they tried to skim-feed fish from the water, Quetzalcoatlus was probably a giraffe sized murder-stork (Although a paper's come out today about one of Quetzal's relatives that has some Interesting Implications), a Triceratops was probably not a peaceful herbivore but instead basically an ancient rhino, complete with aggression, all that sort of thing.

 

[Azurewraith]

I threw out alignment straight away along with those stupid default background personality traits. Material components gone and you bet you can cast with a shield. I also added a boat load of martial options

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Most of my capricious rulings are based around the weapons and their use:
Bows can use either Str or Dex to hit and damage.
A finesse weapon is not required for Sneak Attack. Now Rogues can actually get use out of all the weapons that they're proficient in.
Quarterstaves are two-handed weapons. No, I don't care what Gandalf was doing in the movie.
Most sword-type weapons can deal Slashing or Piercing damage at the wielder's choice. Likewise other weapons may have the option of different damage type if their design warrants it. (eg, the traditional warhammer with the spike on the other side etc.)
Studded leather doesn't exist, but there are equivalent armours with the same stats.

I've also allowed characters to swap their initial racial ability bonuses for a feat.

 

[iserith]

I can't say I have this trait or habit. I've definitely seen DMs who have had it, but I tend not to stick around in their games as there seems to be a correlation in my experience between this trait and others I cannot abide in a regular game. Typically, if I'm making a house rule or including one option or another to the baseline game, it's because I'm trying to evoke a very particular play experience for that one adventure or campaign by playing to its theme. The next adventure or campaign won't have the same house rule as the current or past one.

 

[MNblockhead]

Interesting how many throw away alignment. I almost feel that in 5e alignment is just flavor text anyway. In prior editions there were spells to detect alignment and even alignment languages. In 5e, alignment is just part of background. The only way it ties into the game mechanics is for awarding inspiration.