Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 6342744" data-attributes="member: 529">IMO, a house rule is a game mechanic in addition to, or that conflicts with the RAW.  Monsters, spells, etc aren't new game mechanics, they are content just like a description of your campaign world, that uses the game mechanics from the RAW.  New monsters, magic items and spells could have the same impact as a house rule though, particularly spells.  So if you are being conservative with house rules, I would think you should also be careful about adding new content.  However, the question I have for you, is what does it matter?  Does it really benefit your table to run without house rules for an arbitrary amount of time before making changes?  I can see running one or two sessions with the RAW to get a feel for a new edition, but some house rules are so simple and have such little impact on the game that I don't think waiting is a good idea in all cases.  And many house rules have an impact on character generation, which typically takes place only when you first start.For instance, I have one house rule already with 5e:  The RAW is you either choose to roll ability scores or use the array, while point buy is presented as a variant.  I allow my players to roll for ability scores, but if they don't like their rolls they can use the default array. The effect of it is they have a chance to get exceptionally high or low ability scores, but still have the option of taking the standard array of numbers if they perceive their rolls as not fun.  The DM's guide will likely have more options, perhaps even presenting the same house rule I'm using as a variant; but for now, this is technically a house rule.It's a simple house rule that I bet a lot of people use without even thinking of it as a house rule.  It can result in more powerful PC's on average, but while there is an impact, I don't think it's a huge one because it still doesn't violate bounded accuracy or change the mechanics of the game. OTOH, a house rule like "You can increase ability scores past 20" would do just that.  It's the sort of rule that I would avoid, and I'm guessing is the sort of thing you're seeking to avoid too.  My thinking is that these type of rules are pretty easy to avoid if you wish to do so.  The question to ask is "Does this rule directly violate something in the RAW, or is it just adding or modifying the rules in some way?"  If it seems like a direct contradiction, it may not be a good house rule to add right away.  Of course, even if the answer is no, it might still not be a good house rule and may have unforeseen implications; I agree it is wise to be conservative.But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  If a house rule is simple and doesn't make 5e into something it's not, but it makes your life easier and the game more fun, I'd go ahead and implement it, perhaps on a trial basis.  Or at least, not be too rigid with the 1 year idea.  I've noticed that with every edition of D&D, there are just some house rules that make too much sense not to use right away, and I don't see the point of living with a rule you don't like for an entire year just because it's official.As an aside and a PSA:  I'd also type up your house rules, preferably on a single sheet of paper, and hand it out to the players.  I usually DM, but there is nothing I detest more as a player than discovering while I play that something I want to do won't work because of the DM's unwritten house rules.</blockquote>

Verification