Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 1397351" data-attributes="member: 9723">Heh heh. As a player I've had two major brushes with House Rules (three, if you count the one game that was home made). In both cases I was a pain about it. The first was a situation where we needed to wake up because a battle was going. So the DM had us do a Listen Check vs a Fort Save. If the listen check was higher, then you woke up. After the game we had quite a long discussion on that (I tried to convice him to just use a listen check vs. a DC set by the amount of noise). Mostly I was upset because it was punishment for rolling well on the Fort save. Then there was the Rolling on taking 20 (for exceptional results), which went hand in hand with auto successes on a natural 20. I wouldn't have minded that one had he told us up front.On the other hand, there's a guy I know who does use fairly large amounts of house rules, but they seem allright.I think it's more about the house rules making sense, and the character altering rules being presented up front (not made up on the spot). I think it also depends on there being a good reason for the rules.My house rules in my 3.0 game (for the sake of comparison) were one AOO per opertunity (instead of target), Ambidexterity + TWF both placed in TWF, Bluff not making opponents flat footed, Turn undead replaced with positive energy burst (same rules, more side effects), and an unintentional failed tumble check resulting in stopped movement (I just thought that was how the rules worked).</blockquote>

Verification