How Much Houseruling Are You Willing To Do?

[CleverNickName]

"If you don't like it, you can just houserule it."

That phrase has become quite popular in this forum since the playtest rules came out...it is practically the default response to nearly every complaint about the new system. It's easy to say "X does not exist in my campaign" when dealing with something modular, like a particular weapon or a prestige class. But the more that X is integrated into the game system, the harder it becomes. For example, saying "THAC0 does not exist in my campaign" means rebuilding the entire combat system from the ground up.

Everyone has their own personal tolerance level for houseruling. Some people have no qualms with swinging the Ban Hammer at stuff they don't like, others would rather not have to deal with it at all. Most of us might be willing to make a handful of changes to 5E, but they will eventually reach a point where they will throw their hands up and say "You know what? Forget it! I'll just play <insert name here> instead!" What I would like to know is, how much houseruling are you comfortable with?

None: This is the option for people who don't houserule at all. Voting "None" means "If I don't like it right out of the box, I will probably just play something else." It is very important that the new edition be as close to your ideal as possible.

A Little: This is the option for people who don't mind banning or ignoring a few modular things like spiked chains, wishes, or the monk class, but they shy away from integrated rules mechanics. Voting "A Little" means "I might ban 2 or 3 things, but if I have to do more than that to get the new edition to feel right, I'll just play something else." Your house rules fit on one or two sheets of paper.

Some: This is the option for people who add stuff from elsewhere or create "ban lists" of several modular items, and may change one or two integrated rules mechanics...stuff like level loss, or the way turn undead works...but you try to keep the original game as much as possible. Voting "Some" means "I don't mind houseruling and I'll ban the things I don't like, but if I have to make more than a dozen changes, I'll probably play something else." Your house rules are maybe a dozen pages long.

A Lot: This is the option for people who add and remove lots of modular elements to their game, and make several changes to the integrated stuff as well. You play a heavily-modified version of the game, and it includes several changes to integrated rules mechanics...you have a magic point system and you use DR for armor, for example. Voting "A Lot" means "I am very comfortable with houseruling, and I'll write my own version of the new edition if I have to." Your house rules are several dozen pages long.

Complete: This is the option for people who houserule the game so completely that it is almost a different game. Voting "Complete" means "The game I play isn't sold in stores. I don't care all that much about the content of the new edition, because I'm just going to cherry-pick it for ideas anyway." You don't have houserules; you have a custom rules handbook/SRD.

-----

Me? I voted "Some." I don't mind making adjustments to D&D Next, to get the style of game that I want. But if I have to ban or modify more than, say, 10 things? No thanks. I'll just play my custom 3.5E game instead: it only has 8 house rules.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Is there anything for "I don't mind houseruling, and I won't ban anything"? It's slightly disconcerting that your idea of making 5e your ideal game consists of "banning" things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I will play any fun game, whether that fun comes out straight from the box, or I put in tweaks to make it that way.

 

[CleverNickName]

Is there anything for "I don't mind houseruling, and I won't ban anything"? It's slightly disconcerting that your idea of making 5e your ideal game consists of "banning" things.

Hey, it's not *my* idea. This poll is a response to the many different thread posts saying "if you don't like it, you can just houserule it out" with respect to game elements you might not like. I'm trying to measure just how reasonable that suggestion is.

 

[delericho]

There's no fixed amount.

The target is for 5e to give me a significantly better experience than house-ruled-3e. If it can do that out of the box, or it is structured such that I can see how to get to that point, then I'm happy to tinker. And, over time, I'll no doubt tinker extensively.

On the other hand, if it just seems to be much the same, and it's not obvious how to make significant improvements, then I'll very quickly drop it in favour of house-ruled-3e. And "very quickly" means exactly that - indeed, I may hit that point before I buy a single 5e product.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The thing is, in 5e, that suggestion is supposed to be more reasonable than it ever was before. Someone coming from 4e evaluating how much houseruling they'd be willing to do will have a different expectation than 5e might allow/enable.

If it's hard, I am unwilling to do any of it.

If it's easy, I am willing to do all of it.

The promise of modular rules is that a "houserule" isn't just a "houserule." It's the game's actual rules, in the control of a DM. If 5e does its job, any newbie DM should be able to houserule their D&D game without any major hiccups.

I am willing to do easy house rules. Hopefully, the design of 5e will make it so that it is fairly easy to do even massive overhauls of the game system.

 

[the Jester]

Hmm. I'm not quite sure how to answer this.

I am willing to completely houserule a system, but I generally play a new system as written for a good long while first.

At a certain point, the question isn't, "How much houseruling are you willing to do?", it's "How much houseruling makes you prefer a different system?" And the answer is- it depends on the system and how much I like it.

 

[Minigiant]

I prefer None but and willing to do some.

I rarely ban anything. Especially in my homebrew worlds. There are empty spaces designed into them for any addition purposely.

But I will tweak many things. And I do expect that some of the modules I want at start that don't make it. So I will have to add them. And I do add rules to enforce roleplaying withing the world. Atonement spells. Penalties for broken pacts. Enemy and Rival charts. Reputation. So I might have to add those.

 

[Lwaxy]

Missing the "depends on the group" option, so voted "completely."

 

[Remathilis]

I voted a little, because I can't help tinkering. But honestly, I rarely ban much from my games (other than some really broken supplements or for flavor reasons, like no divine magic in Dark Sun).

So no, as of right now I have no intention of banning at-will magic or Reaper.