D&D 5E How long til you modified 5e?

[Shiroiken]

Thanks to everyone who has responded and/or voted so far.

Some remarks:

I didn't think "immediately" would be such a common response. I would've included it as an option on the poll if I suspected it would be.

@Shiroiken : You wrote that 5e is great for customization. Out of curiosity, how would you compare the customizability of 5e to earlier editions, assuming you have experience with any of them? (open question if anyone else wants to respond)

I knew that immediately would be common, which is why I pointed it out. Unlike the last two editions, 5E was built with the assumption of modularity and house-rules (from developer comments during the playtest). 4E was perfectly balanced, which was both it's strength and weakness, but it made house-rules very dangerous to implement, since it would disrupt the very carefully designed balance. 3E wasn't really balanced, but this was the very height of the era of RAW, which I suspect was a byproduct of 3E. AD&D 1E was created to serve as a uniform set of rules for OD&D, which was rife with homebrew and house-rules. I'm not that familiar with BECMI (I mostly just used the adventures, which were mostly excellent), so I don't know how well it was customizable. The closest system to 5E is AD&D 2E, which was also readily customizable, and many ideas were eventually made official in later books.

As for how 5E is customizable, it's built on a pretty simple frame. There are official variants in the PHB and DMG, but there are endless options that can be easily added (or in some cases, removed). The DMGuild is an example of this.

@Satyrn: You mentioned inventing new monsters doesn't count as modifying. I respectfully disagree, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn I'm in the minority in defining homebrew content as such. The distinction for me is whether the thing implies consideration of mechanical impact on game play. Something to do with the mystical developer's "stamp of approval" some GMs prefer or require before giving a thing serious consideration for inclusion in their own games. Not that anyone needs WotC's approval to modify the game and have fun doing it, and anyway, custom monsters are some of the lowest-impact form of house rules (again, as I define it). Even so, I'd like to avoid derailing the thread with a debate about semantics. However you and others approach the question and select an answer is fine by me. Clarifications in written responses are appreciated.

Adding new monsters shouldn't count as homebrew, since there is a section in the DMG discussing how to do it. Assuming the rules are followed, this should still fit into RAW.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6892611]Smarmot[/MENTION] was also one of the first things i threw out. Additionally quarterstaff needs to be wielded with two Hands and does 1d6 in my houserules.

 

[Zardnaar]

A few months and even then I ignored a few rules (encounter guidelines). I think it was 2015 when I started using 3pp material.

 

[ad_hoc]

@ad_hoc: You wrote that it's impossible not to house rule. Adventurer's League players, in theory, should all be operating under the exact same set of rules. A person who has only ever DMd AL would have a "Never" response if they're abiding by AL guidelines. That's not always the case, of course. However, as defined in the OP, rulings are not house rules (see response to Jer).

Adventurer's League is a set of houserules.

And yes, you're defining rulings as not houserules but have not defined where the line is. That is why my answer is either never or always.

 

[Satyrn]

I just realized my answer of never should've been immediately. I use a different initiative system.


And you could argue I use a different skill system, but I really just think of it more like I'm ruling that the specific rules don't apply and I'm just using the general "Roll against a DM-determined DC" rule.

 

[cbwjm]

Not even sure if this counts but polearm mastery with a quarter staff and a shield got the axe pretty quickly. That's so silly I can't believe it hasn't been errata-cated

A little later, and honestly this seems like a no-brainer that any DM would do, someone pointed out that shooting a target in a fog Cloud or darkness etc would be a normal shot since the attacker's disadvantage was countered by the fact the target couldn't see the attacker. Balderdash. I defaulted to a much simpler rule that any attack through heavily obscuring squares are made at disadvantage (Unless the attacker via senses can see through it)

I'm not sure if I changed it but I do recall thinking that it was stupid for advantage and disadvantage to cancel each other in the cases of darkness, etc.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Harzel]

Immediately, and it was a poor decision. I had not played since 1990, and things looked familiar enough that I overlooked some important differences.

 

[redrick]

A few months and even then I ignored a few rules (encounter guidelines). I think it was 2015 when I started using 3pp material.

I wouldn't consider ignoring encounter guidelines to be a houserule. It's the DM's prerogative to design encounters however they see fit and there's no need to put that in a houserules document. The only thing I'd bother to discuss with players ahead of time is the goals of encounter design. (Should combats be unforgiving and often best to avoid, cakewalks, challenging but fair, etc.)

 

[CleverNickName]

I haven't really needed to house-rule anything. 5E is so open-ended, and so many of the rules mechanics are so flexible or completely undefined, that there really isn't much need for new "rules."

As the DM, I can decide that certain situations call for using Constitution for Athletics checks instead of Strength, or that a player's attack did enough damage to also knock his target prone, or that the unsanitary conditions in the swamp prevent the players from fully healing during a long rest, etc.

I have thought about adding a bit more crunch for deities, and bring back the favored weapons. But I don't want a stupid weapon proficiency to be the reason why the player decides his cleric will worship St. Cuthbert instead of Pelor. So I won't probably write it as a house rule...instead, I'll just wait until the character completes a quest for the local temple or something, and then reward the character with a weapon proficiency instead of bonus XP or gold. Easy-peasy.

Edit: When my next campaign kicks off in a few months, I plan to houserule Intelligence a bit, to make it a bit more important. Because having an entire party of "Int 8s and a wizard" is kinda lame.

 

[Ratskinner]

Immediately. I modified ability score rolling to a card method. And I modified death/0 HP mechanics to add interest.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app