Tony Vargas
Legend
If you make a judgement call, and the players later rely on it, attempting similar actions in hopes of similar results, and you come through consistently, you've, at least, added to the rules.
In that, we'd be in agreement.
Are GM creations "house rules"?
I think these creations are house rules. If you took them to a Organized Play event, would they be allowed? Probably not, therefore they are house rules.
This is especially true if the elements are similar to existing elements. For example, lets say the standard potion of healing heals 10 hp. You make a variant that heals 15 hp. This is the same as house ruling potions of healing to heal 15.
If you truly want to stick to the Rules As Written for 5E, stick to the monsters, items, traps that come with the game.
This is especially true if the elements are similar to existing elements. For example, lets say the standard potion of healing heals 10 hp. You make a variant that heals 15 hp. This is the same as house ruling potions of healing to heal 15.
If you truly want to stick to the Rules As Written for 5E, stick to the monsters, items, traps that come with the game.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Um, that's exactly what that is. But creating an Improved Cure Wounds potion (or whatever you call it), that's more expensive to create/purchase and use different rules is new content, as it doesn't replace the basic healing potion, but just supplements it.
Just changing something's value is, yes, house ruling. Which isn't what the OP was suggesting.
A great deal of 1E-era sacred cows started as new content created for tournament games. Not only does that stuff get accepted, it sometimes goes on to be a core part of the game. (What up, Drow?)
Just to clarify, the reason I ask is not so much to get an answer to the admittedly strange question of whether a new monster is technically a house rule, but more to get perspective on whether a new monster creates the same problem when trying to evaluate a new edition as a house rule would. That is, doe DM creations obscure clear evaluation of the rule set? My intent is to figure out if 5 E is for me (compared to, say, Pathfinder) and I certainly will desire to make new and interesting things, but should I kick the tires on the official content before doing that?
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
There's no such thing as house rules.
Just rules.
All rules come from the DM. Sometimes they are the rules publishers have recommended, sometimes they are not, but if the DM is a good DM, then the stamp of approval from some dork in Seattle does not matter one little bitty bit because the DM, as a good DM, knows what rules to apply MUCH better than some distant game designer who has never met you does.
Those published rules are only useful in as much as a good DM finds use for them.
Just rules.
All rules come from the DM. Sometimes they are the rules publishers have recommended, sometimes they are not, but if the DM is a good DM, then the stamp of approval from some dork in Seattle does not matter one little bitty bit because the DM, as a good DM, knows what rules to apply MUCH better than some distant game designer who has never met you does.
Those published rules are only useful in as much as a good DM finds use for them.
Irrelevant. In OP, the DM doesn't bring anything to the game, they simply run the presented adventure. You are strongly discouraged from deviating from the scripted adventure in anyway. I was mildly reprimanded for this during an Encounters season.
If you are playing RAW for the reason Reynard listed, then I agree with this. Anything you add to the game does change it, be it a house-rule or not. If you just want to test the system, you are best off buying the Starter Set and running it (or you might want to wait for the Tyranny of Dragons thing, since I've heard a lot of negative things about the Starter Set Adventure).
