Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
House Rules and You: A survey
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6898251" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>My philosophy on house rules is to make as few as possible for the desired result. I want to find either a fulcrum point that allows me to get what I want with a minimum amount of change, or make targeted changes that only hit the most egregrious problems. I'm happy to say that 5e requires a lot less that 3e did, but they tend to be more significant. If someone new joins my group the game shouldn't feel like it's my own version of D&D to them.</p><p></p><p>An example of the first type is that I find it conceptually offensive that you are stuck only ever knowing a limited number of cantrips, despite being able to know (either automatically or potentially) every high level spell on your list. Phenomenal cosmic powers...still can't figure out <em>mending</em>. My solution is to allow prepared casters to prepare additional cantrips with a spell slot. You can still cast them at will if you do so. For cleric's and druids, you already "know" all of them. For wizards you have to add them to your spell list. So the cantrips known becomes simply your signature cantrips that you don't have to spend a preparation on to have ready. (For spontaneous casters, I just allow them the option to retrain cantrips when the level like they can retrain other spells.)</p><p></p><p>An example of the second type is the issue with the Berserker you brought up. Here's my house rule:</p><p><span style="color: #B22222"></span></p><p><span style="color: #B22222"><strong>FRENZY</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'">You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once) without suffering any adverse effect. Each time you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you suffer one level of exhaustion when your rage ends.</span></p><p></p><p>I very rarely nerf anything in the rules. That's annoying for players. So if I'm adjusting a PC feature, it generally means buffing something that stands out like a sore thumb as weak. However, I think it is important to point out, that 5e PCs are <em>powerful.</em> You should almost never provide an across the board bonus to them unless you want to make challenges even more trivial. Fix imbalanced class features you dislike, but don't just say all PCs get an extra feat or something. Really, it will detract from fun more than enhance it unless your party likes to roll over everything and fight a stream of improbably powerful monsters you're continually throwing at them to challenge them.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><br /> <br /> I'd advise against giving them the extra skill. They don't really need it. I assume the Variant human is the default in more worlds, because the stats make more sense to me that way conceptually, but I allow the other one as the "variant" for a human who intentionally tries to be good at everything.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I'd discourage this. Don't give them extra save proficiencies, don't give them half proficiencies, don't let them take the Resilient feat more than the once they are allowed. Just don't do it. Having those sorts of weakness is one of the things that at least tries to help them not steamroll the game.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Again, this is just making an easy edition into in kindergarten mode.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Agreed! Feel free to steal my version above if you like. I developed it after a long discussion and mathematical analysis a few months ago...I'm not sure if it was old enough to still be on here, but it might be.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Perfectly good idea. I eventually decided I didn't want to mess with it, but this is one of those things I've wanted to do in some editions.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> If this makes it do more damage than duelist but less damage than great weapon style, then it's probably a pretty cool idea. Just make sure it doesn't do more than great weapon style (not counting the feat).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Take a look at this before you do all the work:<br /> <br /> <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view" target="_blank">Way of the Four Elements Remastered</a><br /> <br /> I rarely use other people's home brews, but this is good enough to make an exception.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is one that is notoriously hard to fix in a way that pleases everyone, but you might want to check out the recent UA article for the official alternative in playtest state.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Yes, pact of the blade needs something. It is one of those sore thumb weaknesses. Here is the fix I ended up making after the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide introduced <em>greenflame blade</em> and <em>booming blade</em>.<br /> <br /> <strong><span style="color: #B22222">Thirsting Blade</span></strong><br /> <span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'">When you use your action to cast a cantrip that includes a melee attack with a weapon, you can make one weapon attack with your pact blade as a bonus action.</span><br /> <br /> Note that that is in addition to the normal feature of Thirsting Blade rather than a replacement. This gives you the choice of whichever works best for your current character's set up (but they are inherently mutually exclusive on any particular turn).<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Interesting idea. The concept of receiving limited benefit from using a single weapon style has bothered me also. My current solution is making the dueling fighting style also grant a +1 AC bonus if you aren't using a shield. That way you are only giving up 1 AC for style or hand availability, rather than 2.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Just watch out for the difficulty. 3e need significant nerfs (at least -5, and more for higher DCs) to get in line with 5e's intended difficulties. Also, a suggestion someone made that I think works great for conceptual purposes is to add the word "challenge" after the DC difficulties in lieu of task or action. So a DC 10 isn't an easy task (you're typical person fails 45% of the time!) but it is an "easy challenge."<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This will slow down the game, so keep that in mind. It was left out very intentionally. Also, remember that spellcasters have to concentrate on the spell while it is readied (even if it isn't a spell that normally requires concentration), so it can be disrupted if you hurt them and they fail their Con save. You have a point about rogues though, but keep in mind that readying makes it harder for them to maneuver into position where they need to for a sneak attack.</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6898251, member: 6677017"] My philosophy on house rules is to make as few as possible for the desired result. I want to find either a fulcrum point that allows me to get what I want with a minimum amount of change, or make targeted changes that only hit the most egregrious problems. I'm happy to say that 5e requires a lot less that 3e did, but they tend to be more significant. If someone new joins my group the game shouldn't feel like it's my own version of D&D to them. An example of the first type is that I find it conceptually offensive that you are stuck only ever knowing a limited number of cantrips, despite being able to know (either automatically or potentially) every high level spell on your list. Phenomenal cosmic powers...still can't figure out [I]mending[/I]. My solution is to allow prepared casters to prepare additional cantrips with a spell slot. You can still cast them at will if you do so. For cleric's and druids, you already "know" all of them. For wizards you have to add them to your spell list. So the cantrips known becomes simply your signature cantrips that you don't have to spend a preparation on to have ready. (For spontaneous casters, I just allow them the option to retrain cantrips when the level like they can retrain other spells.) An example of the second type is the issue with the Berserker you brought up. Here's my house rule: [COLOR="#B22222"] [B]FRENZY[/B][/COLOR] [FONT=Book Antiqua]You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Constitution modifier (a minimum of once) without suffering any adverse effect. Each time you use this feature again before you finish a long rest, you suffer one level of exhaustion when your rage ends.[/FONT] I very rarely nerf anything in the rules. That's annoying for players. So if I'm adjusting a PC feature, it generally means buffing something that stands out like a sore thumb as weak. However, I think it is important to point out, that 5e PCs are [I]powerful.[/I] You should almost never provide an across the board bonus to them unless you want to make challenges even more trivial. Fix imbalanced class features you dislike, but don't just say all PCs get an extra feat or something. Really, it will detract from fun more than enhance it unless your party likes to roll over everything and fight a stream of improbably powerful monsters you're continually throwing at them to challenge them. [LIST] I'd advise against giving them the extra skill. They don't really need it. I assume the Variant human is the default in more worlds, because the stats make more sense to me that way conceptually, but I allow the other one as the "variant" for a human who intentionally tries to be good at everything. I'd discourage this. Don't give them extra save proficiencies, don't give them half proficiencies, don't let them take the Resilient feat more than the once they are allowed. Just don't do it. Having those sorts of weakness is one of the things that at least tries to help them not steamroll the game. Again, this is just making an easy edition into in kindergarten mode. Agreed! Feel free to steal my version above if you like. I developed it after a long discussion and mathematical analysis a few months ago...I'm not sure if it was old enough to still be on here, but it might be. Perfectly good idea. I eventually decided I didn't want to mess with it, but this is one of those things I've wanted to do in some editions. If this makes it do more damage than duelist but less damage than great weapon style, then it's probably a pretty cool idea. Just make sure it doesn't do more than great weapon style (not counting the feat). Take a look at this before you do all the work: [URL="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1pdYIcfHauwNDM2My1XeWFYSDA/view"]Way of the Four Elements Remastered[/URL] I rarely use other people's home brews, but this is good enough to make an exception. This is one that is notoriously hard to fix in a way that pleases everyone, but you might want to check out the recent UA article for the official alternative in playtest state. Yes, pact of the blade needs something. It is one of those sore thumb weaknesses. Here is the fix I ended up making after the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide introduced [I]greenflame blade[/I] and [I]booming blade[/I]. [B][COLOR="#B22222"]Thirsting Blade[/COLOR][/B] [FONT=Book Antiqua]When you use your action to cast a cantrip that includes a melee attack with a weapon, you can make one weapon attack with your pact blade as a bonus action.[/FONT] Note that that is in addition to the normal feature of Thirsting Blade rather than a replacement. This gives you the choice of whichever works best for your current character's set up (but they are inherently mutually exclusive on any particular turn). Interesting idea. The concept of receiving limited benefit from using a single weapon style has bothered me also. My current solution is making the dueling fighting style also grant a +1 AC bonus if you aren't using a shield. That way you are only giving up 1 AC for style or hand availability, rather than 2. Just watch out for the difficulty. 3e need significant nerfs (at least -5, and more for higher DCs) to get in line with 5e's intended difficulties. Also, a suggestion someone made that I think works great for conceptual purposes is to add the word "challenge" after the DC difficulties in lieu of task or action. So a DC 10 isn't an easy task (you're typical person fails 45% of the time!) but it is an "easy challenge." This will slow down the game, so keep that in mind. It was left out very intentionally. Also, remember that spellcasters have to concentrate on the spell while it is readied (even if it isn't a spell that normally requires concentration), so it can be disrupted if you hurt them and they fail their Con save. You have a point about rogues though, but keep in mind that readying makes it harder for them to maneuver into position where they need to for a sneak attack.[/list] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
House Rules and You: A survey
Top