D&D 5E What houserules do we assume is common in the community?

[delericho]

How would you, as a DM, feel if a player was upset that you weren't using a certain common houserule?

Players are free to pitch whatever house rules (or other preferences) they want - I'm happy to acquire good ideas from any source. That said, I reserve the right to make the final decision. If a player chooses therefore to go elsewhere, that's fine.

And how would you feel as a player if a DM doesn't use a houserule that you were used to?

Meh. Their table; their rules.

(I might be surprised - some of the house rules I've been using are so ingrained that I've probably mistaken them for the actual rules by now. )

 

[Dyson Logos]

I have come to expect (sadly) that the bonus action potion rule is in effect.

I hate it.

Either it makes non-healing potions WAY better than they should be (better than the spell equivalent since they don't cost an action to use), OR the rule is hand-waved so it only applies to healing potions.

The other ones I run into (and also hate) are fumbles on a nat 1 (hint: don't ever play a fighter or a warlock in these games), and the 20 always succeeds and 1 always fails.

 

[Oofta]

I have come to expect (sadly) that the bonus action potion rule is in effect.

I hate it.

Either it makes non-healing potions WAY better than they should be (better than the spell equivalent since they don't cost an action to use), OR the rule is hand-waved so it only applies to healing potions.

The other ones I run into (and also hate) are fumbles on a nat 1 (hint: don't ever play a fighter or a warlock in these games), and the 20 always succeeds and 1 always fails.

Fumbles on a nat 1 ... don't even get me started. Sadly that's been a favored house rule by some DMs since the inception of D&D and, as you state, it's just terrible for anyone that does multiple attacks per round. One of the most illogical house rules I've ever had the displeasure to endure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or the ones who cunningly take a class skill that overlaps with one of their background skills so that they can exercise the "if you already have this proficiency" clause to pick a different one, not realising they can do it anyway.

To be fair, in dndbeyond it is the easiest way to do so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have come to expect (sadly) that the bonus action potion rule is in effect.

I hate it.

Either it makes non-healing potions WAY better than they should be (better than the spell equivalent since they don't cost an action to use), OR the rule is hand-waved so it only applies to healing potions.

The other ones I run into (and also hate) are fumbles on a nat 1 (hint: don't ever play a fighter or a warlock in these games), and the 20 always succeeds and 1 always fails.

It is also a direct nerf to sorcers, because concentrating on spells is what they are good at.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

And people then complain how useless str is.

I hate when people argue that an acrobat is the same as an athletic check... like isn't Dex good enough make your darn str check.

 

[Parmandur]

All it does is makes people play stupid item games. Dropping and then picking up weapons is the most common one I saw. In other cases paladins use two-handed weapons so they can use bonus action spells they're clearly supposed to be using to support their combat effectiveness and so on.

In any case, I'm just relaying what I do and what I've seen other DMs do. For the most part, DMs aren't too concerned about this stuff. Throw in things like switching from a melee weapon to a bow, climbing without taking an action to doff a shield, etc..

That's fair enough: I wouldn't assume that is common, per se, however.

 

[Oofta]

That's fair enough: I wouldn't assume that is common, per se, however.

I don't assume any of us know what's truly common. I just know that even when I go to conventions I don't remember a DM being a stickler for the whole item swapping thing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't assume any of us know what's truly common. I just know that even when I go to conventions I don't remember a DM being a stickler for the whole item swapping thing.

I've been a stickler for it for a long time, for the reason that was brought up: balance. So there is regular dropping weapons and picking them back up.

I am getting rather sick of that (even though no one has lost a weapon because of it), and have house rules that you can switch a weapon to your shield hand and back as a single item interaction for aesthetic purposes (rather than dropping it), though in a situation where you would lose it if dropped the same would apply.

I m considering house-ruling that you get two free object interactions rather than one. I just have to compare all the options and make sure the balancing elements are still doing something in that case.

 

[Cruentus]

Fumbles on a nat 1 ... don't even get me started. Sadly that's been a favored house rule by some DMs since the inception of D&D and, as you state, it's just terrible for anyone that does multiple attacks per round. One of the most illogical house rules I've ever had the displeasure to endure.

I always assumed it was to offset the critical hit on a 20 that everyone always wants (only good stuff, never bad stuff!). But yes, it does affect martials more than most.

I played in a 2 year campaign with random fumbles (on 1) and random critical hit effects (on 20). It was rough all the way around, but the only way that the totem barbarian ever actually was threatened…ever.

I assume everything is ‘toggled on’ in the game if it’s an option that buffs or helps characters, and toggled off if it’s a limiter in any way. From there I can decide if I want to play in said game, depending on how many of which side are toggled.