D&D 5E What are your favorite/non-favorite house rules?

[Li Shenron]

My favourite house rules are those which don't really change the RAW of a game but instead define something around the game.

For example I always enforce the house rule that "attacking, stealing from or betraying another party member without her player's consent is forbidden". As far as I know this is never really a rule in any game, neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden, so it's pretty much a house rule by definition. But it's rather something a DM should make clear before starting a game.

 

[Draegn]

@Maxperson Yes and that amount would be all you have levels 1 through how far you play unless you take a "feat".

 

[Lanefan]

Reply to OP.

Max hitpoints for levels 1 to 4.

As a favourite or non-favourite?

 

[Lanefan]

Yes and that amount would be all you have levels 1 through how far you play unless you take a "feat".

So if a typical 1st-level character has on average something north of 100 hit points, how many hit points does a typical commoner have; and if there's a big gap between commoner and 1st-level, what justifies it?

Also, do your low-grade monsters (e.g. Kobolds, Orcs, Goblins) also have Con x 10 h.p.? If yes, your combats must take forever to resolve; and if no then what can ever seriously threaten a low-level character in that system?

 

[Blue]

Folks, let's keep this on focus of your favorite and least favorite as the OP requested. People who play with house rules often have a list of them and we've had threads to list them all.

However this thread seems focused on seeing what one you think makes the single biggest improvement in your game and I think that's actually a pretty cool distinction. And the idea of the least favorite - be it one you've tried and it didn't work out, or one you've had "inflicted" on you - is a pretty cool idea.

 

[Bitbrain]

As a favourite or non-favourite?

Favorite.

 

[delphonso]

I played a game where a crit fail meant you fall prone. This was in 3.5 - so standing would get you AoO. Basically made crit fails a death sentence. I really hated it - because it made melee characters much worse. We also fought mostly groups of things, so when an enemy fell, it wasn't a big deal.

It did change the game, though. By the end, we were all ranged except two melee characters who were grapplers.

 

[Maxperson]

So if a typical 1st-level character has on average something north of 100 hit points, how many hit points does a typical commoner have; and if there's a big gap between commoner and 1st-level, what justifies it?

Also, do your low-grade monsters (e.g. Kobolds, Orcs, Goblins) also have Con x 10 h.p.? If yes, your combats must take forever to resolve; and if no then what can ever seriously threaten a low-level character in that system?

That's what I was wondering. Well, not the commoner portion, but good point. Rather, I was wondering how encounters are balanced. It's not even low level monsters. The game doesn't expect 100-180 hit points on PCs until mid to high levels.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Favorites:
No evil PCs (very seldom is it played as other than silly or random)
Druids cannot shape change (hated that since AD&D 1e)
Play your own gender. (If you had seen what happened before this rule, you would understand. And probably be in therapy.)
Don't use Inspiration.
PHB only, except for some feats.
No XP for killing; instead, a system of Honor for role-playing, ideas, insights, and the like. 40 Honor buys a new level.

Beyond that, just tweaks based on the setting.

 

[Eltab]

My favorite example of 'critical fail' came when one player rolled a '1' with a bow and arrow, and I as DM told him "You hold the arrow tightly and shoot the bow at your enemy. It wobbles into the square ahead of you and falls to the ground." This was an 'Intro to D&D' scenario and I did not want him to be totally hosed. Everybody got a laugh from the mental image. Next turn he stepped forward, picked up his bow, and resumed firing.