For DMs only: how much you delight in House Rules?

[EricNoah]

I use a few, but I don't "delight" in it. House rules seem to be harder to look up and remember than the standard rules and so sometimes they slow the game.

 

[Wombat]

As stated many times, I run D&D 3.Wombat.

I allow various alternate classes, heavily revamped races (and drop several commonly available), change how and when spells may be gained (especially by clerics), change weapon types, how magical items are distributed (and how magical items may "level up", though without having read the article in Dragon), dropped (for the most part) battle boards, etc.

In other words, my game is as different from 3.0 and 3.5 is, but in different directions; to my mind, this suggests LOTS of changes.

 

[Ylis]

The only house rules I really go by are for EXP gain and a few other miscellaneous things...typically I'm the only one in the group that's bothered to read a book from front to back, so any house rules I make are learned first. It can come in handy, really. (My players have been playing forever...they just learn by play rather than by reading...)

 

[der_kluge]

I have quite a few house rules - lots of tweaks to lots of little things. Some of them are minor (no spiked chains), others are more elaborate (Artificer's Handbook for magic item creation), so it varies. I have 11 pages of house rules. A lot of that is variant Prestige class builds for the Paladin and Ranger. Though, I do allow Ranger as a class as well. I actually reduced a fair number of these rules when 3.5 was released - things that 3.5 FIXED from 3.0. So, that was good.

 

[Gothmog]

I use lots of house rules, not so much for fixing problems in the system (3.5 helped a lot with that), but with adding extra bits to reflect the nature of my world. I use a modified spellcasting system, fumbles, weapon groups (not the same as UA), defense bonus by level, armor as DR, a few new classes to replace existing ones, new feats, new human cultures to replace the demihuman races (there are no elf, dwarf, halfling, etc PC races IMC), etc. At last count, I had over 20 pages of house rules, and I'll add more as I come up with new ideas. Most of the rules don't changes the basic nature of the game, but instead add new details to it.

 

[Celtavian]

I love house rules...

D&D by itself is a game without flavor. Without House rules, it would be like playing a video game with set, inflexible rules. House rules are the spice of D&D.

 

[Cor Azer]

Other than campaign-specific house rules (like allowed books or character creation), I can't think of many that I use as a DM... I'm sure there probably are some, but I try to stay pretty close to the core books.

 

[ichabod]

Having worked as a game designer, I cannot resist tinkering with the rules. I use a hybrid roll/point buy for abilities, I have my own rules for handling ECL races, I've house ruled the wizard and druid (I'd houseruled over half the classes before, but it made it too hard to use suplements), I've got house rules on massive damage, coming back from the dead, casting multiple spells in a round, ritual magic, armor, whips, targetting area effect spells, and meditation. I'm on my third rewrite of the psionics rules. I've changed the spell lists around and houseruled a score of spells. I've got house rules on xp for magic items, and the alignment of permanent magic items. I was working on a book of house rules to release on pdf, until UA came out (half of it was stuff I'd been working on).

 

[Quasqueton]

I would much prefer to play a game (any game) with no house rules at all. House rules complicate the game.

But I do have a handful of house rules for my D&D3.5 campaign. I specifically did not want to rewrite the game, or throw the balance all out of whack, or drive my Players nutty trying to remember everything. I have one major house rule (concerning darkvision and lowlight vision), and five or six minor house rules.

The major house rule has effects throughout the game, but really only on a minor, almost just cosmetic, level. Its effects can be seen/felt fairly often, but it does not stagger the play. Most PCs can go through a campaign and never really be affected by this one change.

The minor house rules are really more on the level of gentleman's agreements I've put down on paper.

I have thought up many more house rules, mostly minor, but I've limited the actual rules to just those things that really stick in my craw and annoy the crap out of me on a conceptual level.

For instance, it really bothers me that the spell touch attack rule breaks all the other rules of combat -- a caster can cast a spell, move, then touch a target *in the same round*. That is a standard action, a move action, and a standard action. This break in the system annoys me deeply, even though it will rarely come up in a game. I've ruled that a caster can't put a move in between the cast and touch *in the same round*. Even though this would rarely come up in a game (has never so far in a few dozen games I've seen), I've set the rule on paper just to make me feel better. I probably could leave out this house rule, never have to deal with it, and have one less official house rule.

But not fixing a rule like this bothers me like not straigtening a crooked picture frame in the hallway. It is just sloppy.

So that is my issue with house rules.

Quasqueton

 

[Jeph]

House rules? Bah. House systems are where it's at. That aside, I tend to run purchased systems strait these days--if I make any alterations, they tend to be omissions.

--Jeff