Level Up (A5E) What are your common house rules?

[Morrus]

I've been using the idea of anti-expertise, or maybe flaws (I haven't worked out a good name). Basically, it is an aspect of a skill, like existing skill concentrations, that works against you rather than for you. Just like adding an expertise die when the task would logically be covered by a specialization, it would remove one when it would logically be covered by a flaw. A character might for example have a flaw in hearing on Wisdom (Perception) rolls, such that any such roll involving sound would subtract 1d4 from the total roll. A PC may take up to two flaws at character creation, choosing from the same categories as skill concentrations. Succeeding on a skill roll that features a flaw earns the PC Inspiration in the same way that one earns it from various tasks related to the PC's Destiny.

We had that in early drafts of the rules. We removed it because it was a PITA in play.

 

[Tessarael]

I do think that bonus action potions is a good house rule. It infringes on a few class features, but encourages use of potions, which otherwise are often not worth the action needed to activate them; or at least result in that character spending a turn drinking a potion which is rather boring dramatically from a storyline and fun gaming perspective.

 

[Distracted DM]

I do think that bonus action potions is a good house rule. It infringes on a few class features, but encourages use of potions, which otherwise are often not worth the action needed to activate them; or at least result in that character spending a turn drinking a potion which is rather boring dramatically from a storyline and fun gaming perspective.

A5E specifically has the Rapid Drink maneuver, which does exactly this.
Before A5E I had a house rule that you could sub an attack for drinking a potion.. it gave martials a boost in 5e. They don't need that in A5E

 

[Tessarael]

I'd argue that the Rapid Drink maneuver is a suboptimal choice vs. other maneuver options, except if/when potions are abundant.

 

[Distracted DM]

I'd argue that the Rapid Drink maneuver is a suboptimal choice vs. other maneuver options, except if/when potions are abundant.

Greater+Superior healing potions are a popular choice for Rapid Drinkers at my tables, especially when in a bind mid-fight. I personally dislike potions as a bonus action for all, partially because it steps on existing features' toes, but I also try to press time and resources at my tables so potions are also frequently consumed in-between encounters.

I have to wonder if part of the popularity of "bonus action potions" comes from the "1-2 encounter adventuring day," because if you're getting all your HP back via rests then potions seem useless if they take an action in combat.

edit: Whoops, I realize now that we're probably getting off-track. Or is that what forums are for?

 

[Tessarael]

We do use healing potions mid/late-battle, when someone has gone down (giving it to them) or is about to, at which point the action is worth it. But agreed, allowing it as a bonus action does step on some existing features.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We had that in early drafts of the rules. We removed it because it was a PITA in play.

To each their own. I like it, and I think it makes more logical sense to have it then not. Besides, it's optional, so a player can always opt to not give flaws to their PC. It makes the skill system more granular, which I want because IMO skills are just too broad.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Greater+Superior healing potions are a popular choice for Rapid Drinkers at my tables, especially when in a bind mid-fight. I personally dislike potions as a bonus action for all, partially because it steps on existing features' toes, but I also try to press time and resources at my tables so potions are also frequently consumed in-between encounters.

I have to wonder if part of the popularity of "bonus action potions" comes from the "1-2 encounter adventuring day," because if you're getting all your HP back via rests then potions seem useless if they take an action in combat.

edit: Whoops, I realize now that we're probably getting off-track. Or is that what forums are for?

To me the popularity of these kinds of rules largely stems from them removing bits of hardship from the PCs. Players almost always want their PCs to have more power or fewer restrictions.

 

[someguy42]

Destiny
Excellence is removed.

We had a player in our Game with excellence and it definitely came up every single session they were in. Where as everyone elses destiny came up made 3-4times. DM said had they known it would be like this they probably wont have let them take it.

 

[Tessarael]

I would treat it the other way round. Inspiration should not be something that you are desperately holding onto in case you need it. Better if it refreshes once per long rest. And that way, it is not a game balance issue how often the destinies trigger inspiration.

And a significant problem that I have seen in play with some of the other destinies is even remembering to get inspiration at all, then needing to ask and prod the DM as to whether you get it in given circumstances.

As an example, I have a Warlock with the Coming of Age destiny. I have a tendency to sit on the inspiration to use it when I need proficiency or say to reroll a saving throw. As a result, I seldom use it. The character's triggering criteria to gain inspiration ("when you achieve a personal milestone; join a new guild or organization, travel somewhere new and far from home; accept a new major quest or mission; change worldviews and grow as a person") and not using inspiration often, mean that I have used inspiration a total of 3 times in 9 levels. That makes inspiration an unimportant mech complication that is an afterthought in play. If it was gained once per long rest, or once per session, I would use it more often and it would be a meaningful mechanic.