D&D 5E What variant rules should I add to my new campaign?

[The Crimson Binome]

Hmmm... so a nat 20 does extra hp to wizards but does gold piece dmg to armor guys...

I've seen games where this sort of thing encourages players to avoid wearing armor. After all, HP recover automatically, but armor needs to be fixed or replaced.

The option to sacrifice valuable equipment would be more meaningful in a game where HP didn't recover as quickly.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

So your wizards font carry non focus staves now? Bet they will once this goes into effect.

Cxn fighter have armor component pouches yo cover them when they get crits?

Obviously this will be NPCs I am talking about, cancelling PC crit rolls.

I get the sneaking suspicion you don’t like this house rule. Good thing no one is forcing you to use it.

 

[5ekyu]

I've seen games where this sort of thing encourages players to avoid wearing armor. After all, HP recover automatically, but armor needs to be fixed or replaced.

The option to sacrifice valuable equipment would be more meaningful in a game where HP didn't recover as quickly.

Yup. It's a big sack of unintended consequences... what's the cheapest lightest weapon a wizard or anyone can carry to blow off crits?

Might help TWF as you burn your dagger off-hand to stop the dragon crit then just draw another on your turn.

I can imagine how many of their crits being eaten by enemy dagger breaks before my players balked... no wait... they would never approve it in the first place.

You know it's a good rule when basic question prompt the "nobody forcing you" evasion.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Yup. It's a big sack of unintended consequences... what's the cheapest lightest weapon a wizard or anyone can carry to blow off crits?

Might help TWF as you burn your dagger off-hand to stop the dragon crit then just draw another on your turn.

I can imagine how many of their crits being eaten by enemy dagger breaks before my players balked... no wait... they would never approve it in the first place.

You know it's a good rule when basic question prompt the "nobody forcing you" evasion.

I mean, as a DM I wouldn't make PC crits meaningless by having wizards carry non-focus staves just for the purposes of not taking damage. I like to make my games cinematic and fun for the players. I'd hope that a DM using this rule would do the same. In all likelyhood, I could see an NPC use sacrifice something to avoid certain death but would give the PCs some kind of advantage.

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] I think in a more gritty setting, it would be more meaningful.

 

[5ekyu]

I mean, as a DM I wouldn't make PC crits meaningless by having wizards carry non-focus staves just for the purposes of not taking damage. I like to make my games cinematic and fun for the players. I'd hope that a DM using this rule would do the same. In all likelyhood, I could see an NPC use sacrifice something to avoid certain death but would give the PCs some kind of advantage.
[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] I think in a more gritty setting, it would be more meaningful.

To me, if i want to make my games abcd, i dont add in rules that would work counter to that and then talk about how i hope nobody uses the new rule.

Instead, i choose rules which EVEN WHEN USED will make the games abcd.

It just never made sense to put in rules to drive results opposite of what we prefer then figure ways to avoid them happen to do that.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

To me, if i want to make my games abcd, i dont add in rules that would work counter to that and then talk about how i hope nobody uses the new rule.

Instead, i choose rules which EVEN WHEN USED will make the games abcd.

It just never made sense to put in rules to drive results opposite of what we prefer then figure ways to avoid them happen to do that.

That makes sense. I do like the idea in principle though. The idea of gear taking damage. Even just having it as part of a critical would add a certain grittiness. But you couldn’t have it automatically wreck gear then. You’d have to make it so equipment could take x amount of critical hits before being destroyed. Which adds bookkeeping which isn’t for everyone.
And I don’t see a problem with martial characters needing to spend a bit more to upkeep their equipment. Some spell components are very pricey and martial classes never have to worry about those kinds of costs.

 

[5ekyu]

That makes sense. I do like the idea in principle though. The idea of gear taking damage. Even just having it as part of a critical would add a certain grittiness. But you couldn’t have it automatically wreck gear then. You’d have to make it so equipment could take x amount of critical hits before being destroyed. Which adds bookkeeping which isn’t for everyone.
And I don’t see a problem with martial characters needing to spend a bit more to upkeep their equipment. Some spell components are very pricey and martial classes never have to worry about those kinds of costs.

There is nothing inherently wrong or bad with the idea of gear taking damage. It can create a lot of good elements to work with and enhance a campaign in ways that fit the preferred styles.

But, when one gets to specific rules that do specific things and obviously support and reward or "make reasonable" this thing over that thing, then the "principle" no matter how liked has to not blind one to the quality and results the specific rule causes.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I have a few house rules I like to use to encourage tactics during combat. Neither adds any time to gameplay.

1. Instead of saying that any number of advantages cancels any number of disadvantages for a net neutral I judge Advantage/Disadvantage based on which side has the most at any given time. Two sources of disadvantage and three sources of advantage = advantage.

2. If you are actively making a perception roll your minimum result is 1+Passive Perception no matter what you roll on the die. You are always better at a skill when you give up your action to be better. This may apply to other passive skills but PP is the most common occurrence.

DS

 

[Jester David]

I use a “tactical advantage” rule. When flanking or doing something else strategic that should confer a bonus (higher ground, target is in uneven terrain) that confers tactical advantage, which is a +1 bonus to attack rolls.
Like regular advantage, multiple instances or tactical advantage don’t stack.

It encourages tactical play, but is less potent than regular advantage,
.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I mean, as a DM I wouldn't make PC crits meaningless by having wizards carry non-focus staves just for the purposes of not taking damage. I like to make my games cinematic and fun for the players. I'd hope that a DM using this rule would do the same. In all likelyhood, I could see an NPC use sacrifice something to avoid certain death but would give the PCs some kind of advantage.

If I were to try a rule like this in my games, I would not have the sacrifice negate the damage, I would just have it negate the crit and make the damage normal. After all, there is a good chance the character will take damage from a staff or other weapon exploding in his face as it blocks that critical strike. Or take damage in the way of a broken arm when that shield is crushed when blocking a critical hit. I think I would also only allow held items like weapons and shields to be used this way since it would be harder to justify a set of armor being destroyed by a single hit.