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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Houserules Feedback
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="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7831833" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>sword of sharpness</em> is mathematically only slightly better than a <em>+1 longsword</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really care for this, and is really the only thing that I'm critical of.</p><p></p><p>First, it makes melee cantrips like <em>thunderclap</em>(?) and <em>shocking grasp</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7831833, member: 6777737"] 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 [I]sword of sharpness[/I] is mathematically only slightly better than a [I]+1 longsword[/I]. 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 [I]thunderclap[/I](?) and [I]shocking grasp[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Houserules Feedback
Top