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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6621647" data-attributes="member: 996">It is officially encouraged, yes, and it's downright necessary under many circumstances, but 'easy' isn't quite the right word, IMHO.  Ultimately, authoring variants for any game is not so different, save in scope, from designing a game, which is no easy thing to do.  5e gives you permission to change the rules, makes it clear to the players that they can't 'play by the rules' without DM intervention (the core resolution system inserts 'ask the DM' into basically everything), and has a loose enough design that you can't make it a lot worse with a 'bad' house rule.That makes it 'easy' to house-rule if your intent in doing so is to, say, dynamically maximize 'fun' for a group you know well, as you're running it.  If your intent is to somehow flog a degree of mechanical balance into the system, OTOH, you're looking at a lot more and more difficult work. I find that the best way to house-rule 5e - and to run 5e, in general - is to stick to the 'rulings not rules' spirit in which 5e is presented.  Not house-rules, in a codified sense, but house-rulings.  A rule you change is a rule you have to document, explain up-front, and stick to.  Rewarding, if you're a frustrated would-be game designer, worthwhile if you're going for a very specific and consistent tone for you campaign, but not easy.A ruling is one and done, and the next time a similar situations comes up you're still free rule differently.  Thus, you can tailor how the game works to the moment, to get the best result.  As long as you have a good feel for what will entertain your players and/or a clear vision of how you want your campaign to go, that is.  If you mess up, you mess up that one moment in the campaign, learn from the mistake, and move on.</blockquote>

Verification