D&D 5E How Close do you stick with the Game As Written?

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

No, I use lots of house rules.

I'm basically running a combination of PF/3X on the 5E chassis, porting in classes and feats from PF/3X as the players want (with DM approval and house rules to each class). The 5E classes are getting a slight boost (they get a feat in addition to an ability score increase whenever their class offers it; also, the casters spell slot tables have been reworked to match the PF wizard's, but with 2 first level slots at first level). Also, we're using the PF 25-Point buy instead of the 5E version (effectively, a 37-point 5E buy). 5E classes can buy PF/3X feats w/DM approval and PF/3X classes can save up their feat slots to buy a 5E feat (1 5E feat slot yields two PF/3X feat slots).

PF/3X classes lose their iterative attacks and instead map to the same as the closest 5E class multiple attack progression. Also, PF/3X classes now have two good saves, mapped to match the closest 5E class.

PF/3X spells work like 5E spells... Minimum effects unless cast using a higher level spell slot. And, if the spell exists in both systems, generally the 5E version will be used.

Weapons have expanded crit ranges matching the PF/3X versions when used by PCs/NPCs/Monsters with class levels.

Magic weapons and armor are capped at +3. PF/3X magic weapons/armor convert at 1/2 their bonus (rounded up).

We're running Shackled City, but it's not really in Greyhawk. It's in a homebrewed world/planar system. And, since it's Shackled City, the treasure is probably slightly higher than default 5E assumptions. Also, I'm converting a lot of PF/3X monsters to 5E (mainly attack bonus and AC, but leaving most of the rest as is).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For this exercise, if its in the PHB, it's available. All monsters in the MM exist somewhere. The default assumptions (planes, magic, backstory) are used.

I'm not sure if that's reasonable. Has there ever been a setting where everything in the MM exists somewhere? Aside from something ludicrously over-the-top like the Forgotten Realms, or something.

I don't think that including everything is the intended default for this (or any other) edition.

 

[fjw70]

Depends. With my adult group I have been sticking pretty close to RAW with a few minor changes. Would would no restrict EK and AT spell schools (but this hasn't come up yet) and I typically don't use raise dead type spells (but again this hasn't come up in 5e yet). So minor changes for now. I will probably experiment with optional stuff in the DMG.

When I play with the kids I simplify things a lot. Things like no subclass or backgrounds (and the associated stuff).

All races, classes, and monsters are typically around somewhere.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I mostly stick to the core rules and make very little modification or houserules when adjucating the game or making rules call.

 

[Piratecat]

One of my frustrations with 4e is that (due to reliance on the character builder) it's really hard for me to house rule magic items and player character class abilities. It's nice to have that freedom back.

 

[Remathilis]

This is a very difficult question to answer, as to whether my changes are major or not.

A basic principle I follow is to make the minimum amount of house rules I feel are necessary to create the D&D experience I want.

I have no interest in turning D&D into a different RPG, and if I want to play in a different setting than a published one I make that setting rather than extensively revising the published material.

I kinda want to actually use what I'm paying for.

What I'm not sure of is how minor or major others would consider my house rules to be. I'm hoping I won't need more than a page of house rules after all the DMG options are in and I can select which ones I want to use. In the meantime, I made about a page of temporary house rules to adjust things I can't stomach (brain dead animal companions and toothless familiars, limited knowable cantrips, healing, quarterstaves, small characters one-handing normal-sized weapons), and added a couple things that allow flavor I want (dueling fighting style gives a +1 AC if your off hand doesn't have a shield, created a melee defensive cantrip to make mace and shield clerics worthwhile without high strength).

From my initial glance through of the MM (haven't read much of it yet), about the only things I need to change are giving gold, silver, and bronze dragons change shape at the young age category, and finding a way to fix the new Yugoloth backstory fiasco with a minimum amount of disruption.

You're very close to what I'm talking about., at least on flavor purposes. I guess a few table rules would qualify as a change, but as you said, they are minor and more address perceived balance issues than attempts to change the nature of the game.

I'm not sure if that's reasonable. Has there ever been a setting where everything in the MM exists somewhere? Aside from something ludicrously over-the-top like the Forgotten Realms, or something.

I don't think that including everything is the intended default for this (or any other) edition.

There are lots of D&D worlds like Greyhawk, Eberron, Mystara* etc. More important is that the potential for every monster to be there exists; no banning orcs or only having red dragons for example. As a DM, you could open to any page in the MM and that monster could appear more-or-less as is, even if you rarely use more than handful of them.

* Well, Mystara in regards to BD&D monsters at least...

 

[Remathilis]

One of my frustrations with 4e is that (due to reliance on the character builder) it's really hard for me to house rule magic items and player character class abilities. It's nice to have that freedom back.

An interesting notion (actually, I brought that up on Circvs) that I had was 4e did that as a feature; trying to inspire a certain "shared vision" of what D&D rather than dozens of fractured visions. Thanks to a lot of factors (the increased background story elements, the tight balance of mechanics requiring great care to house rule, the character builder's lack of good customization, the restrictiveness of the GSL) led 4e, above most editions, to really lend itself to "OneTrueWayism". That's not to say it couldn't be done, merely WotC made it REALLY appealing to stick to its own vision of D&D.

5e seems to be a step away from that. I'm curious though as to how many people legitimately don't care and just use RAW and implied setting as their starting point and only make minor edits rather than wholesale re-writes. That is, Who is playing D&D according to how the core books define it.

 

[DaveMage]

I house ruled in 1E and 2E a lot. But in 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder, I play RAW.

If I were to play 5E, I would try RAW first.

 

[Dausuul]

Whoops, should have read the OP before I voted. Do I stick pretty close to RAW? Yup, we're pretty close to RAW players. Not a whole lot of house rules and whatnot - we're there to play D&D, so why not play D&D.

However, the second part, do I stick to D&D canon? Not even remotely. I almost always home-brew my own worlds, which means that virtually anything is up for grabs.

Yeah, this.

 

[Psikerlord#]

hard to say for me till dmg releases