Springheel
First Post
How long before all your players create female characters? Or does that rule only apply to the players?
House Rules and You: A survey
- Thread starter Xeviat
- Start date
How long before all your players create female characters? Or does that rule only apply to the players?
Xeviat
Hero
Nifty. My only worry is that odds can skew the stat modifier totals lower ... But that can be corrected with a character's race or their first ASI, so it's not a big deal.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
Total bonuses seem to range (I'm lazy and just hit the button a lot) from 3 (due to a negative) to seven. With racial mods there's some interesting directions to take. Plus it makes a player think about doing things differently.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
...
Last edited:
GrandTheiftBanana
First Post
Hello, new to the board and greatly interested in almost all of these topics. The homebrew and houserules concepts are GREAT and I'm liking a lot of the streamlining ideas especially on character creation.
I don't know if this is the correct place to post all homebrew ideas, but one of the "flash D&D" sessions we played with some new comers to the world of D&D involved just rolling at least a 14 and describing how you were fighting. We had five guys, half an hour to play, no time to create character sheets and start in a tavern (ha ha ha)... So everyone was a barbarian, fighting an orc hoarde... GO!
It went pretty good, and could have lead to a much more detailed adventure. Kind of like the first five minutes of a movie before the intro credits are rolled. But, it wasn't meant to be and we never had the chance to play again.
The house rule I can think of used most recently wasn't covered in the books (or if it was I coudn't find it) is if a wand of lighting could be used underwater. I allowed it, but it had the 'electric eel" effect and did an area damage including the wand holder. Good times, good times. I'm looking forward to trying to catch up on all these amazing topics I've found on this forum. It's like finding a free gold mine and I'm a dwarven prospector with gold lust!
I don't know if this is the correct place to post all homebrew ideas, but one of the "flash D&D" sessions we played with some new comers to the world of D&D involved just rolling at least a 14 and describing how you were fighting. We had five guys, half an hour to play, no time to create character sheets and start in a tavern (ha ha ha)... So everyone was a barbarian, fighting an orc hoarde... GO!
It went pretty good, and could have lead to a much more detailed adventure. Kind of like the first five minutes of a movie before the intro credits are rolled. But, it wasn't meant to be and we never had the chance to play again.
The house rule I can think of used most recently wasn't covered in the books (or if it was I coudn't find it) is if a wand of lighting could be used underwater. I allowed it, but it had the 'electric eel" effect and did an area damage including the wand holder. Good times, good times. I'm looking forward to trying to catch up on all these amazing topics I've found on this forum. It's like finding a free gold mine and I'm a dwarven prospector with gold lust!
One of my house rules involves cleric weapon proficiency: each of the gods in my setting has a favored weapon, which clerics are treated as proficient in, whether they normally would be due to race/class proficiencies or not. Not all clerics will make use of that proficiency necessarily, but it does make them stand out a bit and you can identify at a glance "oh that cleric with the war pick worships the Ebon Judge."
Another is the use of an array (though not the standard one).
Also, I think that the fact that disadvantage can negate a 20 seems lame, so our house rule is that if you roll a 20 with disadvantage, you still get it rather than having it stolen from you just because you rolled a 3 on the other die. That feels awful, and cheapens the excitement of rolling a 20 on something. But it doesn't remove the sting of, say, rolling a 2 and a 19 -- you still just get the 2 and have to deal with that.
Another is the use of an array (though not the standard one).
Also, I think that the fact that disadvantage can negate a 20 seems lame, so our house rule is that if you roll a 20 with disadvantage, you still get it rather than having it stolen from you just because you rolled a 3 on the other die. That feels awful, and cheapens the excitement of rolling a 20 on something. But it doesn't remove the sting of, say, rolling a 2 and a 19 -- you still just get the 2 and have to deal with that.
Xeviat
Hero
I like that.
Duan'duliir
Devil of Chance
My groups (although one hasn't gotten to play since implementation or Houseruled crits with the other group) roll 5d4, replace lowest with a 2, roll 7 scores dropping the lowest, and use that, because we all like high-powered characters, don't we?
And also, crits are semi-explosive - on a crit, roll double dice, add single modifer, roll a d20.
If that d20 rolls a number that would hit the target (no modifiers are added to the roll), add a 3rd die of damage, and double the modifier, and if it would be a crit on an attack, then make that 4 dice of damage, and roll another d20.
if that d20 rolls a 20, then a 5th die of damage, and triple, not double, the modifier.
This crit rule was only introduced in the last session I DM'd, and no player has abused it - none of my players are optimisers other than often wanting a race with bonuses to their classes' primary ability
And also, crits are semi-explosive - on a crit, roll double dice, add single modifer, roll a d20.
If that d20 rolls a number that would hit the target (no modifiers are added to the roll), add a 3rd die of damage, and double the modifier, and if it would be a crit on an attack, then make that 4 dice of damage, and roll another d20.
if that d20 rolls a 20, then a 5th die of damage, and triple, not double, the modifier.
This crit rule was only introduced in the last session I DM'd, and no player has abused it - none of my players are optimisers other than often wanting a race with bonuses to their classes' primary ability
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] By and large, I think 5e works great as intended and I agree with [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] that it's plenty complicated as is. That said, I realize I've been doing something unconsciously for a while as DM that technically is a house rule. Well, it used to be unconscious. Now it's quite intentional.
I don't bother with inconsequential rolls anymore. There are no meaningless calls for "make a Wisdom (perception) check." Anytime I ask for a roll, I back it it up with some kind of consequence that has narrative impact. Additionally, most ability/skill checks have thresholds of success that roughly map to: fails by 5+, fails by 1-4, succeeds by 0-4, succeeds by 5+. And when a player fails a check, I'll sometimes give them a choice of failure options...usually before they roll the check.
Why do I do this? Several reasons. First, it makes the fewer rolls I call for more suspenseful and interesting (i.e. quality not quantity). Second, the increased transparency lets the players decide more clearly what kind of risks vs. rewards they're willing to face. Third, it forces me to think about the narrative impact rather than responding with the first thing that comes to mind. Fourth, when I do it well it curtails "pile on" knowledge / perception checks.
I don't bother with inconsequential rolls anymore. There are no meaningless calls for "make a Wisdom (perception) check." Anytime I ask for a roll, I back it it up with some kind of consequence that has narrative impact. Additionally, most ability/skill checks have thresholds of success that roughly map to: fails by 5+, fails by 1-4, succeeds by 0-4, succeeds by 5+. And when a player fails a check, I'll sometimes give them a choice of failure options...usually before they roll the check.
Why do I do this? Several reasons. First, it makes the fewer rolls I call for more suspenseful and interesting (i.e. quality not quantity). Second, the increased transparency lets the players decide more clearly what kind of risks vs. rewards they're willing to face. Third, it forces me to think about the narrative impact rather than responding with the first thing that comes to mind. Fourth, when I do it well it curtails "pile on" knowledge / perception checks.
Xeviat
Hero
Quickleaf, that's an interesting idea. I let people take 20, and yet we as a group find ourselves at least rolling the first roll to see if we do something (like forcing open a stuck door or picking a lock) on the first try. In the specific situation in referring to (the party found a vault in a ruined keep), there were no real time constraints. The group even waited an hour for the party wizard to identify magic items. Yet the party lockpicker was still rolling over and over again to pick locks.
It would definitely take some training for both I and my players to stop making inconsequential rolls.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would definitely take some training for both I and my players to stop making inconsequential rolls.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
