D&D 5E Houserules Feedback

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s a alotta feedback! Thanks folks!

Comments are bolded in the quote. Nothing is horrible as house-rules go if they work for your table.

Fair enough. The main point of the maneuvers is for them to be generic. They should be things anyone can try. We talked about disarm as well, but decided that there isn’t a good way to make it not be overpowered as a general option without also making complicated, so that might be gates behind a new feat. (We mostly don’t see martial adept as a worthwhile feat even with or without these houserules. )

I generally add the Help action to those that you can trade for an attack.
What is the difference between Trip, and just Shoving an opponent prone (which, as Salthorae noted, already just takes an attack from the attack action.)

How about give an opponent disadvantage on their next attack?

No difference I suppose, I just forgot that Shove is mechanically the same as both pushing and tripping.

I like the idea of giving disadvantage, but I’d only add it as an attack-replacer if I also add Help to the list. Which...maybe.

I grant a bonus feat if the player writes a background, and I haven't had any issues with it.

The only thing that looks like it could be a problem is the +1 ASI when you take a feat. Does no one in your group ever just want to take the ASI? I have at least one player like that, but if you don't it's clearly a non-issue for you. Otherwise, you might need to boost pure ASI to +3, or something like that, to balance the fact that other players could already get a +2 by taking a +1 feat.

So far, no one really wants to just take an ASI. That’s why we did this. We were constantly banging our heads on the (perceived) mathematical pressure to increase numbers and our desire to use feats to customize, and this has helped us think less about optimization at ASI levels.

Makes PCs a little more powerful, but not necessarily a bad thing. Does steal a tiny bit of thunder from human fighters/rogues but not a big deal.

Tends to help monsters more than PCs in the long run since on average there are more monsters than PCs in most games. Still might do this in my own game.

Do you max out sneak attack damage?

On a crit? Yes. You max out all of the normal damage dice, and then roll them, instead of rolling them twice.

Again, not sure how these would work. What does "distract" mean and does goading an enemy have a cost? Does it take an entire action?

They’re all things you can do in place of an attack, like I said.
“Distract someone concentrating on a spell” = force a concentration save, as if you’d done damage.
“Goad” as in Goading Attack, except it is in place of an attack (not in addition to it) and you don’t have a superiority die to add to anything. Essentially, giving a specific action economy cost to pissing off an enemy so that they focus on you.

How? Step in the way and take the attack yourself? Is it a reaction? How does this not stomp on the Protection fighting style or are you just giving that to everyone?

“Stomp on” is hyperbolic, but no, this isn’t giving everyone the Protection Fighting Style. You trade an attack to impose disadvantage on an OA, or to simply allow an ally to move without provoking OAs. Probably the former.

Rogues would love that.

Yep. I’m not worried about rogues getting reaction attacks a little more often, though.

Missed this one.

I'd rather not limit people's abilities to add to ability scores directly. For some builds there just aren't that many feats that make sense and personally I like the tradeoff. I guess that would mean some feats we never actually see could see the light of day which wouldn't be a bad thing.

That is the primary purpose. And our group doesn’t like the trade off. I’m generally a fan of trade offs, but not that one.

Does this apply to the extra feat at first level?

Nope, only to feats you gain from your class.

 

[BlivetWidget]

*1st level bonus Feat. At first level, every character (including most of my NPCs/monsters) receives a feat of their choice. (Yes, including SS and GWM, and including humans)

*Bonus ASIs. When you take a feat from your class, you gain +1 to any stat of your choice.

Yes. I love anything that increases feats. They're one of those great rules that really helps individualize a character (otherwise with point buy, most characters in a class pretty much start out about the same), but I feel like the default rules don't really encourage feats enough. And unfortunately, many feats are character-defining in a way that makes a lot more sense at character creation than they do down the line, where they currently get applied. Personally, I feel like an elegant solution would have been for every background to have included a feat (missed opportunity, I guess).

Do you let Variant Humans start with two feats?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes. I love anything that increases feats. They're one of those great rules that really helps individualize a character (otherwise with point buy, most characters in a class pretty much start out about the same), but I feel like the default rules don't really encourage feats enough. And unfortunately, many feats are character-defining in a way that makes a lot more sense at character creation than they do down the line, where they currently get applied. Personally, I feel like an elegant solution would have been for every background to have included a feat (missed opportunity, I guess).

Do you let Variant Humans start with two feats?

Yep. Although Humans are exceedingly rare in our group.

 

[Salthorae]

Yep. Although Humans are exceedingly rare in our group.

Really? Wow. I'm a human 99% of the time just for the bonus feat.

I guess if I were getting one as any race that would probably shift my thinking, but TWO bonus feats as a variant human?!?

I would have a hard time passing that up...

 

[BlivetWidget]

Yep. Although Humans are exceedingly rare in our group.

No matter, props to you for maintaining consistency.

I would have a hard time passing that up...

So would I, but I'm the sort of person who will take three feats before their first ASI, so...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really? Wow. I'm a human 99% of the time just for the bonus feat.

I guess if I were getting one as any race that would probably shift my thinking, but TWO bonus feats as a variant human?!?

I would have a hard time passing that up...

We rarely have humans at all, regardless of houserules, or even system. Here are two ppl in the group who have played multiple humans in DnD, I’ve played 1 in dnd in my life, and 1 in Star Wars Saga (a teenager with a droidified prosthetic arm).

No matter, props to you for maintaining consistency.



So would I, but I'm the sort of person who will take three feats before their first ASI, so...

Thanks!

And yeah, I honestly would only ever take an ASI if I reached a point where I was just kinda “meh” about any feat option.

 

[Coroc]

My group has recently adopted a new house rule, and are discussing some others (and some DMG optional rules), and I’d love some feedback on what y’all think.

So, starting with those already in place.

*1st level bonus Feat. At first level, every character (including most of my NPCs/monsters) receives a feat of their choice. (Yes, including SS and GWM, and including humans)

....

Did use that one myself for my greyhawk campaign, mainly because I wanted to analyse the influence of feats to the game, after my first campaign was featless.
It works well, makes the characters a bit stronger. NP in using that. It is influencing PC strength eventually like a game with plenty of magic items versus a game with almost no or no magic weapons.

 

[Blue]

A variation on a starting feat is that you can only take a feat that grants a +1 to an ability score, but you don't get that +1.

It kept characters to the move flavorful feats instead of the combat focused ones, and while it didn't inflate starting ability scores the main part of taking out the +1 mode was so that certain types of players didn't feel forced to only take feats that aligned with their class' attack/casting ability score. Especially as some ability scores had very few feats that boosted it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

*1st level bonus Feat. At first level, every character (including most of my NPCs/monsters) receives a feat of their choice. (Yes, including SS and GWM, and including humans)

*Bonus ASIs. When you take a feat from your class, you gain +1 to any stat of your choice.

These help us play the game the way we want, with a lot of customization, without sacrificing the ability to improve our basic math.

Obviously this increases overall class power level. I think it favors martial classes because feat power level is generally skewed towards martial classes. If that's what your table likes, that's fine.

As DM, I would have to think more about encounter difficulty at very early and high level. At some point I would expect that I would be all but required to use milestone XP in order to challenge the players. That's not a problem for me because we already use it, but some people really like getting experience points every session.

On the other hand, the general effect that I notice is that when the encounters get more difficult, even when the PCs are stronger, then the party will tend towards fewer short rests. You may find that Fighters, Warlocks, and to some extent Monks are less powerful or contribute less than other classes.

*Multiclassing and feat prerequisites are mostly null. Especially the ones clearly there to enforce default flavor.

I think the prerequisites are mostly flavor. I like what they add, but beyond that it's pretty negligible. Obviously, it does encourage multiclassing, so you may see a lot of dips into Life Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, etc. However, I think the way the game has smeared frontloaded abilities into the first three levels does a decent job of discouraging multiclassing. I know some tables virtually never see single classes characters, but at our table the single class characters outnumber multiclass characters 6 to 1. It does pick up after level 12, though, when most class abilities drop off.

*Critical hits apply maximum damage on the damage die, and then you roll the dice again. So, your minimum crit damage increases, but the max remains the same, and you never have a crit that does less than the average non-crit.

This is a very common house rule. It's fine. The only drawbacks are that crits are more likely to kill the PCs, and you roll fewer dice and rolling lots of dice is fun. It does make Rogues and Fighter/Rogue critfishers a little more attractive, but I don't necessarily think it does that to a concerning level. It makes spells with a spell attack instead of a save a bit better, too, but, again, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Crits account for such a small amount of damage that under normal rules a sword of sharpness is mathematically only slightly better than a +1 longsword.

Being considered:

*All combatants can trade an attack as part of the attack action to do one of the following. Edit: These work like Battlemaster maneuvers, except you don’t get any extra bonus (obv) and you trade an attack for the special action, while a BM maneuver lets you add to an attack.

+Trip an opponent
+Shove an opponent
+Distract someone concentrating on a spell
+Goad someone into focusing on you
+Provide an opportunity for an ally to move without OAs/impose disadvantage on an enemy’s OAs
+Possibly trade an action to give an ally an attack against a target you could hit as a reaction.

I think this still detracts from being a Battlemaster. If everybody can do your schtick, it's not much of a schtick. I would consider giving the Battlemaster more combat dice, or always refreshing some or all combat dice when initiative is rolled instead of at a short rest. Either way, this is a significant increase in melee combat flexibility.

Edit: I also forgot: trade an attack to make a feint or other move against a target that allows a Reaction Attack if they cast a spell. If it hits, they have to make a Concentration check. They know what you’re doing, and can plan their turn accordingly

I don't really care for this, and is really the only thing that I'm critical of.

First, it makes melee cantrips like thunderclap(?) and shocking grasp as well as Paladin smites functionally useless. Second, I find that Concentration as a mechanic is already extremely punishing and very limiting. Third, spells that have a ranged spell attack already suffer disadvantage when cast in melee. I really think that's more than sufficient. Fourth, if a player really wants to do this, they can take the Mage Slayer feat. Feats are easier to get and far less punishing in your campaign already.

My instinct is that you've made this rule specifically because, with the above changes, every spellcaster is suddenly taking War Caster or Resilient (Con) at 1st level. I mean, that's kind of the bed you've made for yourself. You've got other house rules that make melee combat better. I don't think it's fair to give everybody more power and flexibility, then give more power and flexibility to melee characters, and then punish casters for actually making good choices with that metagame knowledge. This is just part of the problem with feats being skewed towards martial characters. The alternatives like Elemental Adept, Magic Initiate, and Spell Sniper just aren't that interesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Obviously this increases overall class power level. I think it favors martial classes because feat power level is generally skewed towards martial classes. If that's what your table likes, that's fine.

As DM, I would have to think more about encounter difficulty at very early and high level. At some point I would expect that I would be all but required to use milestone XP in order to challenge the players. That's not a problem for me because we already use it, but some people really like getting experience points every session.

On the other hand, the general effect that I notice is that when the encounters get more difficult, even when the PCs are stronger, then the party will tend towards fewer short rests. You may find that Fighters, Warlocks, and to some extent Monks are less powerful or contribute less than other classes.



I think the prerequisites are mostly flavor. I like what they add, but beyond that it's pretty negligible. Obviously, it does encourage multiclassing, so you may see a lot of dips into Life Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, etc. However, I think the way the game has smeared frontloaded abilities into the first three levels does a decent job of discouraging multiclassing. I know some tables virtually never see single classes characters, but at our table the single class characters outnumber multiclass characters 6 to 1. It does pick up after level 12, though, when most class abilities drop off.



This is a very common house rule. It's fine. The only drawbacks are that crits are more likely to kill the PCs, and you roll fewer dice and rolling lots of dice is fun. It does make Rogues and Fighter/Rogue critfishers a little more attractive, but I don't necessarily think it does that to a concerning level. It makes spells with a spell attack instead of a save a bit better, too, but, again, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Crits account for such a small amount of damage that under normal rules a sword of sharpness is mathematically only slightly better than a +1 longsword.



I think this still detracts from being a Battlemaster. If everybody can do your schtick, it's not much of a schtick. I would consider giving the Battlemaster more combat dice, or always refreshing some or all combat dice when initiative is rolled instead of at a short rest. Either way, this is a significant increase in melee combat flexibility.



I don't really care for this, and is really the only thing that I'm critical of.

First, it makes melee cantrips like thunderclap(?) and shocking grasp as well as Paladin smites functionally useless. Second, I find that Concentration as a mechanic is already extremely punishing and very limiting. Third, spells that have a ranged spell attack already suffer disadvantage when cast in melee. I really think that's more than sufficient. Fourth, if a player really wants to do this, they can take the Mage Slayer feat. Feats are easier to get and far less punishing in your campaign already.

My instinct is that you've made this rule specifically because, with the above changes, every spellcaster is suddenly taking War Caster or Resilient (Con) at 1st level. I mean, that's kind of the bed you've made for yourself. You've got other house rules that make melee combat better. I don't think it's fair to give everybody more power and flexibility, then give more power and flexibility to melee characters, and then punish casters for actually making good choices with that metagame knowledge. This is just part of the problem with feats being skewed towards martial characters. The alternatives like Elemental Adept, Magic Initiate, and Spell Sniper just aren't that interesting.

I’ll start backwards, and say first of all that I didn’t take those feats into account at all when making the “ready a Reaction Attack against spellcasting” maneuver. It’s being considered because we like for melee combatants to be able to lock down casters.

I also just disagree that the maneuver detract from the Battlemaster, nor would I be super worried if they did, because the BM is one subclass of one class. It’s a sliver of the game.

But, the BM still does all those things better, and doesn’t give up an attack to do them, and can’t really waste their limited resource bc they chose to spend it upon hitting in most cases. That’s still a really good shtick. Then, there are maneuvers that are still BM exclusive, like precision attack, lunge, riposte, parry, etc.