D&D 5E House Rules

[Benjamin Olson]

In principle I love having an elaborate series of house rules to suit whatever your group's preferences are, but I move between multiple groups, so in practice I prefer having only a fairly limited number. I do find it a turn-off though when a DM says they play it completely by the book, as it makes me suspect that they are an inflexible stickler, or worse don't feel empowered to make the game their own and to keep rules lawyers in check.

 

[Flamestrike]

I do the following:

1) Sneak Attack is 1/turn but no more than 1 round.
2) Short rests are 5 minutes long (and generally handwaved) but no more than 2/ long rest.
3) Costly material components of spells are expended when used.
4) Martial adept grants 2 Superiority dice (I like martial manoeuvres)
5) The Sharpshooter feat treats cover as 1 step less (full = half, ignore half)

I used to allow a bonus feat at 1st, but with Custom lineage and Variant Human in play, I see no need anymore.

All the variant class features of Tashas are in play.

I'm still undecided on the Race rules variant (stat and proficiency swapping). I'm leaning towards if you want to play a variant or non-specific race (an Int based Dwarf, or a Str based Elf), simply select the Custom lineage race and build it using those rules. It removes the temptation for players to try and cheese it with 5 tool proficiencies, or a constant stream of Dwarven Wizards.

I'm tempted to replace the Archery styles +2 to hit, and replace it with a free 'opening volley' shot - a single attack with a ranged weapon you are wielding as a reaction to an enemy you can see starting its turn before your first turn of a combat encounter.

Gives the style a real AD&D vibe where specialised Fighters and Rangers could lob off a shot at initiative before closing to melee.

 

[D1Tremere]

I use a few house rules here and there, mostly at the request of my players. For example, they voted and no one wanted to deal with attunement restrictions. Mostly I avoid them so that players can get a feel that the rules are like the physics for the world. They can count on them to work the way they expect usually, though there may be some specific instances where they are violated.

 

[ccs]

Of course there's a few house rules in place in games I run. When we run into something we're genuinely displeased with we change it. We decide on something that works for us.
Now wether or not that matches whatever WoTC eventually comes up with.....

Would I avoid a game with house rules? I guess that'd depend upon what those rules were.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Thanks for so many replies!

 

[Azuresun]

The biggest one I use is "short rests take 5-10 minutes, but you can only benefit from two fo them between long rests" and "you get an extra feat at level 1, from a list of feats that have never appeared in any optimisation guide".

Apart from that, it's very much an as-and-when thing, since I don't see much benefit in having an exhaustive list that might not matter to any given party. If a spell seems too good to be true, it'll be reined in a bit (ie, Tiny Hut provides invisibility and environmental protection while you rest, but does NOT provide an impervious dragon-proof forcefield, Hypnotic Pattern has a repeating save). Ask if you want to multiclass or shuffle your racial ability boosts around and if it's not obvious cheese, I'll say yes.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am a Forever DM of 30+ years, and I am curious as to how people feel about House Rules, such as changes to healing, resting, race and class choices, nerfs of spells or powers, use of other supplements both "official" and 3rd party, and anything else. Do you avoid these games? Not worry about it? If you do not like House Rules, is it because are you an optimizer (no hate, nothing wrong with this) and it messes with builds? And so on . . . .

Thanks for replies!

I voted 'no'.

Since I started DMing about 20 years ago, I went from a "RAW only" phase to a "let's tinker a bit" to "massively rewriting huge chapters of the PHB" to "back to few house rules (for the players' sanity sake)" during the 3ed era.

In 5e, I simply realized that a game is best played as-is, as long as you don't forget to be a referee, which means that some rules need to be interpreted against the RAI, and others are simply up to you. I don't need house rules until the day I played an edition too much and need a twist to avoid feelings of going through the motion.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I want the game to be as easy for me to run in the style I am the strongest and most comfortable with. Since the designers of D&D had no idea what that style was, it is completely understandable why the game as-is doesn't hit all the markers I want and need. Thus I have no issue and am quite happy to reach for those markers myself by making some changes.

 

[dave2008]

I am all for house-rules. I've had them in every edition. However, I don't think 5e "needs fixing," I just think my group has different tastes that we like to address with house-rules. So, I didn't vote as I didn't think any of the options fit my take on house-rules.

 

[Oofta]

I have a short list, I don't think the game needs much tweaking.

• Ablity score adjustment items add a bonus, they don't replace. In addition, anything that boosts to 20 or less does not require attunment.
• Being raised from the dead is not as simple as casting a spell.
• Drinking a potion is a bonus action.
• Bows are finesse weapons, you can use either strength or dex.
• Since I use the alternate rest rules (short rest overnight, long rest usually a week or more) any spell that has a duration of 30 minutes or more is multiplied by 5.