D&D 5E Player Flavour, Skills, & Money Sinks

[steeldragons]

I have to concur with the majority of the thread at large and [MENTION=232]Crothian[/MENTION]'s observation specifically.

5e is highly houserule-able. It is designed to be very flexible that way and is one of, I think, its greatest strengths.

But between this post an your other one about wanting to houserule darkvision (as much as I agree it is overdone) and stealth...it appears you want to rewrite rather sweeping changes to some different game you like better. That's not really houseruling. That's not tweaking mechanics or adding personal options or setting flavor.

That, appears to me, the conclusion must be this system just isn't what you're looking for to provide your D&D good times [unless of course coming up with sweeping rules rewrites/changes is part of the fun for you. Which would also be completely valid...but does not mean there are "problems" with the existing system...which you seem to believe.]

And that's totally ok. But I think I would be inclined to just go play a different system before I would institute or play -ostensibly- "5e D&D" with some of these proposed alterations.

 

[Sunseeker]

As far as money sinks go, this is by far the most boring, least interesting and harshest punishment to fighter-types I've ever seen.

I can think up a thousand ways to burn my players gold, but I wouldn't want do so by taking them out of adventuring and telling their character has to spend the next 6 months in town studying. At least Harry Potter went to school AND went on cool adventures to battle the Dark Lord. Not to mention if the players leave town for an extended period of time, all the time you do spend studying goes to waste.

Honestly, this makes characters feel MORE the same, since they will spend more time at lower levels, when they have fewer options, fewer resources and you're even further giving them fewer proficiencies and then you're forcing them not to go on epic adventures, but to read books for extended periods of time.

Most people will pick the best weapons for their class anyway and never pick up any more. It's rare the guy who actually wants to pick up every weapon in the book.

 

[Morlock]

I came to the thread hoping to find some broken stuff, or something.

Caveat: I don't mean to discourage anyone. Have fun with the game, as you wish.

1 is not a problem for me. It's how humans work. We all have (or "should") two arms, two legs, a head, a torso, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. We're all so samey-same! Yet, it doesn't feel like that in real life, and it takes a sort of pessimistic outlook to even frame it that way.

2 I could see being a problem, depending on taste. It isn't a big deal to me

3. With no magic item economy, the players are easily finding themselves with literally thousands of gold and having little of tangible GAMEPLAY reward to spend it on. Sure they could buy a keep in the mountains but that's flavour, not tangible gameplay bonus. Even if they do buy magic items, there's FAR less magic items.... which would be fine if every damn character didn't get magic, and loads of it. Rangers and Bards get far more magic now, and Rogues and Fighters both have an arcane spellcaster archetype; so making magic items rare and difficult to source makes no sense now.

It makes sense to me, if you don't assume that your setting is brimming with people with high character levels, which I don't. I kinda apply the e6 paradigm to NPCs; a level 6 character is legendary, and about as high level as NPCs get, barring an VINPC like Elminster, or villains the PCs are fighting. I've never liked the "oh, he's the king, he must be 15th level" thing. I've never liked the "oh, he's the best fighter in the city, he must be 10th level" thing. I've never liked the "oh, he's going to be interacting with the PCs, so he must be near their level" thing, either. I prefer lower levels: the vast majority of men-at-arms are 1st level fighters; the leaders are 1st or 2nd level fighters; the champion types are 3rd level fighters; above 3rd, you're dealing with true badass fighters, and a 6th level fighter is a maxed out fighter, on the verge of becoming a legend known to all the sages until men stop recording history.

Again, I mean none of this to stop you; by all means, forge ahead.

 

[TornadoCreator]

I thoroughly and completely disagree with the OP on all points for mostly the same reasons as everyone else.

I would rather than downtime confer benefits that are related to the region or a specific topic. For instance, a wizard spending a month visiting historical sites and studying manuscripts written by past rulers would then gain permanent advantage on history checks while in the region. A druid spending time to study local flora and fauna gets permanent advantage on nature checks in the region, or even can automatically succeed without rolling. The demon hunting ranger mentioned up thread could have advantage on religion checks regarding demons, or, like the druid, could automatically succeed*. Someone researching orc customs and traditions would get advantage on social checks with orcs. Spending time working for a local tailor might grant advantage on sleight of hand checks until local fashion trends change.

My personal favourite is to spend time building social and political power for my character. Sure, you might be stronger, faster, and smarter, but when we're both dead I've got powerful allies willing to bring me back to life (the powergamer in the party was rather upset when that happened. It was glorious).


*When I DM I allow players to automatically succeed on things that would make sense if it relates to their backstory. For example, I have a cured lycanthrope in one of my games. He will automatically pass checks knowledge checks regarding lycanthropes. It helps prevent silly situations like a cleric of Pelor not recognizing Pelor's symbol after failing a religion check.

I'm not opposed to these ideas. I also auto-pass characters on things they just should know. Your downtime seems less "downtimy" though if that makes sense. I'm not giving permanent bonuses because someone spends three weeks in game reading over some scrolls... it's a big time commitment, 6 months; and a commitment of gold, first 250gp for the training and another 400gp in living expenses presuming the "comfortable" lifestyle; and they can't work a profession or practice a craft during this time to offset the cost either. I have players actively choosing not to do this, so it can't be that overpowered can it.

 

[TornadoCreator]

I have to concur with the majority of the thread at large and [MENTION=232]Crothian[/MENTION]'s observation specifically.

5e is highly houserule-able. It is designed to be very flexible that way and is one of, I think, its greatest strengths.

But between this post an your other one about wanting to houserule darkvision (as much as I agree it is overdone) and stealth...it appears you want to rewrite rather sweeping changes to some different game you like better. That's not really houseruling. That's not tweaking mechanics or adding personal options or setting flavor.

That, appears to me, the conclusion must be this system just isn't what you're looking for to provide your D&D good times [unless of course coming up with sweeping rules rewrites/changes is part of the fun for you. Which would also be completely valid...but does not mean there are "problems" with the existing system...which you seem to believe.]

And that's totally ok. But I think I would be inclined to just go play a different system before I would institute or play -ostensibly- "5e D&D" with some of these proposed alterations.

Why do D&D players act like the game is practically sacred and say stupid crap like "go play something else", as if my house rules might damage your game. I've been roleplaying for close on two decades and I've never yet found a game I didn't feel the need to house rule. Add in that there's literally a "what house rules make 5e better" thread where people are suggesting many of the same house rules I already use, clearly shows I'm not the only one who wants to play the game this way.

In short stop acting so defensively and making out as though I'm "playing the game wrong". If you dislike my house rules or little tweeks, tell me why, or maybe even explain why it's better the other way. If not criticising my points just comes across as little more than saying "I don't like it because it's different, and I fear change".

Did you ever play 3rd Edition? Did you ever play it without house rules? Wasn't it such utter crap without those house rules, with practically no balance to the system at all... I rest my case.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Player characters are all the same. You have the same attributes by point buy, you have the same proficiencies, you have the same equipment, you have the same class features.... so where's the character flavour?

If you think that's the case, I'd reinforce the ideals/flaws/bonds and Inspiration mechanics more. Hook adventures into character traits, and award Inspiration liberally and see the distinct stories pop!

2. There are no skills anymore. You have proficiency or you don't. That's it, so no fine tuning your character to give them that extra flair; hell there's not even any feats (not really, the few feats that do exist are bare bones at best and you have to give up the attribute increase).

You could give out feats for free if you wanted at every fourth level or whatever. That ups the power, but it's no biggie. It's your game, do what you want.

3. With no magic item economy, the players are easily finding themselves with literally thousands of gold and having little of tangible GAMEPLAY reward to spend it on. Sure they could buy a keep in the mountains but that's flavour, not tangible gameplay bonus. Even if they do buy magic items, there's FAR less magic items.... which would be fine if every damn character didn't get magic, and loads of it. Rangers and Bards get far more magic now, and Rogues and Fighters both have an arcane spellcaster archetype; so making magic items rare and difficult to source makes no sense now.

Sell magic items in shops if you want. DMG has suggested prices. No big deal.

It's probably safe to say that not everyone agrees that these are flaws, but the way to make the game more like the game you want to play isn't so convoluted. Just do it. It'll be fine. If your players find it too easy, you can ramp up the difficulty, too.

 

[Gansk]

So... here's my house rule. Tell me what you think.

Characters need DOUBLE the XP stated in the book in order to level up, and all player characters start at 2nd level. The idea behind this is simple; player characters need to stay at lower levels for longer. Characters who gain proficiency in weapons no longer gain them in the same way. If your class grants you 'Martial Weapon Proficiency' or 'Simple Weapon Proficiency', you get to choose ONE weapon in that category that you are proficient with. This means fighters will have to carefully decide what weapons they have trained with... and it makes racial proficiencies more important and thematic.

During gameplay you can spend 250gp to learn a new tool proficiency or language, this takes approximately 6 months of in game time to achieve. This is already in the main rules in the PHB, I intend to expand on this.

If you wish, you can use this same method to train in the use of a weapon, armour, skill, save, or spell. You gain proficiency in that weapon, armour, skill, save; or learn that spell. If you don't have spell slots, you cannot learn the spell as you would be unable to cast it... so in effect you're limited to cantrips for none spellcasting classes (nb. Eldritch Blast cannot be taught, attempts to do so always result in the students confusion... those that finally understand and learn the spell find they have inadvertently made a pact and must level up next level as a Warlock, such is the dangers of trying to harness raw magic). Learning spells does mean sourcing either a wizard willing to teach you, or a scroll containing the spell. This means spells above third level will likely be far more expensive than the 250gp needed for basic training, and spells of 7th level and higher will cost as much to gain tutorage in as buying a small castle. Wizards are not quick to trade away their most potent magic.

You can speed up this learning process, halving the time to learn to only 3 months, but you must be in seclusion and doing nothing but studying. Learning over 6 months can be done while travelling and living a normal sedentary lifestyle. All learning requires either a tutor, or access to resources, such as a library.

If you already have proficiency, you can still train. Doing so costs the same amount, 250gp and 6 or 3 months game time depending; at the end of which you gain Expertise (as the Rogue class feature), in your chosen tool, skill, or weapon; granting you double your proficiency bonus when using this tool/skill/weapon.

If you already have Expertice in a tool, skill, weapon etc. you can train further and gain Mastery in your choed field. This last stage of training costs 1000gp and takes a minimum of a year (GM discretion), to master; it may even require an adventure in it's own right. Going to a long forgotten ancient library to gain mastery in History, finding a magical portal and travelling to the Feywilds to study first hand for mastery of arcana, travelling to the most inhospitable part of the natural environment and living off nothing but the land for months for mastery of Nature etc...

In the case of skills and tools, gaining mastery in them gives you TRIPLE your proficiency score; while with weapons training you get to add your proficiency score to your damage (as well as the double proficiency to hit from expertise), making mastery of a weapon especially potent. Mastery of combat spells is in theory possible, though there's no real recorded examples of someone having managed such a thing.

This change gives players a way to "level up" there characters without actually leveling up and the time frame means players have to actively show in gameplay or state during downtime that they're taking this extra training. This will also allow for lower level characters to specialise more, and for well complimentary teams to take down things of higher than normal CR which will naturally feel awesome.

So what do people think? Interesting house rule or not?

I plan to do something similar to this - here are my recommendations:

1) Drop the spell learning and limit the skills to "background" skills. "Background skills" are skills that could earn you money in another profession besides "adventurer". Performance is a "background" skill, Insight is an "adventuring" skill. Proficiency in "adventuring" skills can only be gained through race or class.

2) If you insist on the apprentice/expert/master levels of proficiency, don't have it scale with level - set it to static bonuses of +2/+4/+6. IMO this is too fiddly for 5e, I decided to drop this level of detail.

3) Regarding weapons and armor, allow some basic weapon proficiencies usable by everybody - club, staff, unarmed (or natural weapon for Moon druids and races with claw/bite attacks), and dagger (or call it a knife and not allow it to be thrown). Then give some extra free proficiencies at first level - three for warrior-types, two for clerics/rogues, and one for wizard-types. Multi-class characters do not receive the free proficiencies of their second class.

4) Allow the warrior-types (fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger) to gain proficiencies in weapon categories instead of individual weapons (all swords, all axes, etc.). You can allow fighters only to specialize in a specific weapon if they take a second proficiency, but attach a specific battle master maneuver that they can use with the weapon instead of the boring attack or damage bonus.

5) Use categories or armor instead of individual armor (light/medium/heavy). Light is the prerequisite for medium, medium is the prerequisite for heavy. Classes that are prohibited from using certain armor in the PHB still need to honor those restrictions.

There is another thread that explored this type of weapon proficiency house rule and it also had a fair number of detractors. But there were also a few people who supported it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Interestingly, this is the one part of TornadoCreator's idea that I really do like. I'm a huge fan of downtime and the passage of weeks or months or even years. I like to see how the pcs actions help the milieu evolve.

This.
My own houserules expand downtime a bit, and I'm working on rules for stronghold/running a business/being a noble with responsibilities/advancing in a guild/etc.

The One Ring handles downtime really well. It basically runs on the assumption that an entire adventure takes about one year, including travel time and down time, and that characters go home and spend most of the winter being home and doing downtime stuff. The specific rules handle travel and downtime really well, and I recommend the game to anyone, even if just to steal ideas from. It helps that the art is gorgeous. It's honestly one of the best looking game products I've ever seen.

 

[steeldragons]

If you dislike my house rules or little tweeks, tell me why, or maybe even explain why it's better the other way. If not criticising my points just comes across as little more than saying "I don't like it because it's different, and I fear change".

As you wish. I don't see any of your houserules or little tweaks as being necessary because I do not see/have not found any of your "points" to be either true or, if there is potential truth (like #3), problematic.

Did you ever play 3rd Edition?

Nope. Not once ever.

Did you ever play it without house rules?

Obviously not.

Wasn't it such utter crap without those house rules, with practically no balance to the system at all... I rest my case.

From what I have read and heard from those who have played it, YES! Which leads me immediately to think, "Why would anyone bother to play, let alone go to the trouble to rewrite, 'utter crap'? Why wouldn't they just play something else?"

As I said, if you're having fun doing this, that's valid and carry on. But you really have no right to get defensive, yourself. When you are, deliberately, rewriting the game in ways that I (and apparently others) do not see as problems or feel necessary you can't really get all up in arms when the response is, "This doesn't really seem like a problem or necessary."

 

[TornadoCreator]

As far as money sinks go, this is by far the most boring, least interesting and harshest punishment to fighter-types I've ever seen.

This is the harshest... I must try harder. You should have played in my 3.5 edition game ran after 4th came out. The Spellplague hit and I had everything go to chaos. Equipment shortages where commonplace, so getting a normal non-magical longsword was hard, let alone something magical. I had regular wild magic and anti-magic fields so people relying on magic where no safer. Even food was in short supply. Was a really good game though and the players loved it.

I can think up a thousand ways to burn my players gold, but I wouldn't want do so by taking them out of adventuring and telling their character has to spend the next 6 months in town studying. At least Harry Potter went to school AND went on cool adventures to battle the Dark Lord. Not to mention if the players leave town for an extended period of time, all the time you do spend studying goes to waste.

At no point did I say you couldn't postpone your study, and I actively gave examples of two people training for a new proficiency during adventures, earlier in this very thread. If you're going to claim my house rules are bad, do so fairly, don't strawman them.

Honestly, this makes characters feel MORE the same, since they will spend more time at lower levels, when they have fewer options, fewer resources and you're even further giving them fewer proficiencies and then you're forcing them not to go on epic adventures, but to read books for extended periods of time.

It's called realism. I run a game where the heroes are men and women who stop the orc tribe invading the city, destroy the evil wizard raising the townsfolk as undead, stops the demon-worship cult from bringing forth hell on toril, and maybe even travels to the depths of the underdark or far reaches of the feywild to find a rare artifact for a powerful noble, and to be rewarded with great riches naturally... I'm not running a game where the heroes are demi-gods who can do what they want, regularly kill fantastic creatures without breaking a sweat, jump between planes of existance becuse they can, and cause fights with demon lords or even Gods. This is a medieval fantasy adventure, not a damn animé.

If that's not to your liking, that's fine... but we're not all racing to get to level 20. I actually think the game is most fun at about level 6-7 and beyond level 12 is where it becomes too outlandish. Plus my players are intelligent, one time they decided that the immediate job was too much hassle and the dangers to unpredictable, so they hired another party of lower level characters to do it and used divination spells to watch...

Which is quite right. Who at level 15+ goes out on dangerous adventures when they're rich and powerful enough to send other lowly adventurers?

Most people will pick the best weapons for their class anyway and never pick up any more. It's rare the guy who actually wants to pick up every weapon in the book.

Yes it is, which is why I found it very weird when someone was complaining that removing weapon proficiencies ruined the fighter and made it not worth playing. What utter nonsense. As you say, usually someone picks their favoured weapon and that's the weapon they use for the entire campaign (unless an enemy is resistant to it for some reason).