D&D 5E What are your 5e houserules

DND_Reborn

Legend
Something a friend of mine pointed out was weapons juggling. Right now, to draw and change weapons quickly is a bit of a mess. You get one free "handle an object" each turn, but if you're a dual wielder or a sword + shield guy, or a someone who has to juggle a weapon, shield, and a focus, the RAW rules are obnoxious any time you don't start the combat with things readied in both hands, or need to change them out.

Switch hitters and anyone thinking to use thrown weapons has to deal with this issue as well. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's being added to potential house rules for a patch.
Well, drawing and changing weapons IS a mess. I mean, have you tried it? It isn't as easy as you might think and is meant to encourage PCs to be ready if a scene looks potentially dangerous.

Personally, I have never had too much issue with it, with the greatest exception being thrown weapons, which IMO drawing it should be part of the attack, just as drawing an arrow from a quiver is. 🤷‍♂️

Now, you can drop an item without any cost at all. So, drop your current weapon, free interaction to draw a new one, and attack.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Well, drawing and changing weapons IS a mess. I mean, have you tried it? It isn't as easy as you might think and is meant to encourage PCs to be ready if a scene looks potentially dangerous.

Personally, I have never had too much issue with it, with the greatest exception being thrown weapons, which IMO drawing it should be part of the attack, just as drawing an arrow from a quiver is. 🤷‍♂️
Thrown Weapon fighting style from Tasha's and Dual Wielder Feat get around the "can only draw one weapon freely on your turn" thing.

Now, you can drop an item without any cost at all. So, drop your current weapon, free interaction to draw a new one, and attack.
I like this mechanic. Gets players away from the "endless inventory" video game mindset.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Thrown Weapon fighting style from Tasha's and Dual Wielder Feat get around the "can only draw one weapon freely on your turn" thing.
Precisely why I haven't had too much issue with it...

We have our own "Long Thrower" feat which allows it as well.

I like this mechanic. Gets players away from the "endless inventory" video game mindset.
I don't know it is a mechanic, per se, and frankly don't know if I read it in the PHB or DMG or just use it as a rule because it makes sense.

But yeah, our PCs are dropping weapons when they don't have the time to exchange them. Fortunately, if you are in the same location, you can drop your new weapon (no action at all) and pick up your original (interaction for free) if you need to switch back.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
One of the places it gets weird is with Clerics. The Cleric is pretty much intended to use a shield (they don't have to, of course, but...) since they need to be in melee range to use their better heals. So you have a Cleric with a weapon and a shield. Thankfully, the Cleric is allowed to use have his holy symbol attached to his shield, so that satisfies material components, but he still needs a free hand to cast spells due to any somatic components.

This means in order to cast a spell like spiritual weapon, he has to stow his weapon, leaving him unarmed unless he uses his action to ready it once more. Clerics don't have good attack cantrips, so if he wants to melee and use spiritual weapon, he has to attack first, then stow his weapon in melee, then cast his spell.

If he does it the other way, he has nothing to work with but an unarmed strike. This is one of those strangely fiddly rules like the limits on casting bonus action spells to begin with, that always seems to trip players up.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
This means in order to cast a spell like spiritual weapon, he has to stow his weapon, leaving him unarmed unless he uses his action to ready it once more. Clerics don't have good attack cantrips, so if he wants to melee and use spiritual weapon, he has to attack first, then stow his weapon in melee, then cast his spell.

If he does it the other way, he has nothing to work with but an unarmed strike. This is one of those strangely fiddly rules like the limits on casting bonus action spells to begin with, that always seems to trip players up.
This really isn't an issue IME, but YMMV of couse!

Cleric has a weapon and shield. Needs to cast a spell with a somatic component, so stows his weapon.

Next round, cleric needs to make a weapon attack, so draws his weapon.

There are only a handful of cleric spells which are bonus action and have somatic components: Sanctuary, Shield of Faith, Spiritual Weapon, and Holy Weapon.

Now, some of these will want to be cast while the cleric has a weapon drawn, but even then if the weapon is out, the cleric could attack, stow weapon, and cast these as bonus actions; then drawing his weapon again the next round.

Frankly, IMO this is just a hassle anyway and would look a bit silly. We rule the cleric can hold their weapon in their shield hand (assuming the shield is strapped to their wrists or has a hanging strap) while casting such spells.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Correct. We have found rolling critical "damage" is much more useful than rolling a natural 20. One of my players is now running a more RAW games, but this is one of the rules he adopted for his game as well. Two new players have joined since then, and frankly they both love this rule. IME it is so much better than just rolling a 20...
Thanks for sharing! I have only skimmed through at this point, so I may have missed something.
Doesn't the critical hit being determined by the damage die mean d4 weapons like daggers and clubs will get a critical hit more often (25% of hits) than a d8 battleaxe (12.5% of hits)? And both will crit more often than a d10 greatsword (10% of hits)?

Why do you have "cleave" as a damage type distinct from slashing?
I like this mechanic. Gets players away from the "endless inventory" video game mindset.
As I understand it, this is pretty close to 5e RAW. The only "new" element is dropping your weapon having no action or movement cost specified by the rules as far as I know, but is a reasonable inference since you can drop yourself to the ground for free.
 

Off the top of my head so far:
-Rolling Attributes:
Rolling stats straight down. Instead of doing 4D6, it's 4D7. Ones and twos are rerolled. The Seventh roll for a stat is considered a "wild card" type thing. So, if you didn't like a number that you rolled for your stats, you can replace ONLY one of them with the seventh wild card rolled stat. Apply Tasha's +2/+1 afterwords. (My DM does this and was the method we used when I played DND 5E for the very first time ever about two years ago.)

-Backgrounds:
Think it's stupid that a Background can make you "double up" on a Skill making it a waste and don't feel like, for whatever the reason, to replace the skill with something else? Well, if you double up on a skill due to background/class/whatever, you can gain Expertise in the skill if you want. I don't think it's broken if say like, an Elven Fighter chooses Perception as a class skill while already being proficient in Perception and gaining Expertise by doing that. Bards/Rogues can do it and it doesn't break the game into oblivion and back. You'll still get murdered by Demogorgon's force damage attacks, regardless, if some random fighter smuck has Expertise in one skill. (Fun Fact: Everyday Heroes does the same exact thing where doubling up on a skill gives you Expertise in it.)

-Animal Companions:
Animal Companions scale using the Revised Ranger's Companion's Bond feature. This allows Animal Companions/their owners(the PC) to grow in power together and allows the Animal Companion to bump up their Attributes as well whenever the PC gains that option to do so. Feats may only be granted to an Animal Companion via certain tasks/goals/special circumstances/DM fiat/Amazing Achievements. And even then only one Feat would probably be given and that's it. Animal Companions, when gaining the two skills of their choice due to Companion's Bond, may also choose to "double up" on a skill to gain Expertise in a skill if they choose too. To make Barding not completely useless in a situation like that, if the PC's prof score is better than the Barding's AC, I just have Barding count as a +1/+2/ to AC ala shields. (granted your paying more for your pupper/critter to "use a "refluffed shield" but I don't have the time to make a big fuss over a proper work around.)

Sub Animal Compannion Rule: Tasha's *Primal Companions are also allowed to use the Revised Ranger's Companion's Bond to scale up in power too. Also, the traits of the "base form" of the Animal Companion still apply to the Primal Companion. So if a PC managed to somehow gain the trust of a Beast of The Land Primal Companion that was a Wolf: that Primal Companion will ALSO have Pack Tactics and Keen Hearing/Smell along with the Primal Bond and Charge of the Beast of the Land stat block. Sounds crazy, but Primal Companions are seen more as a "end game" type deal or something stronger, Animal Companion wise, compared to say, a random stray mutt that the Bard found at a shelter/pound. In terms of power/strength tiers for Animal Companions it would be: Random Animal(or non pc companion)---->PC Animal Companion----->Primal Companion.

-Rolling for HP on Level-Ups:
Only gaining one HP every time you level up sucks. So, if you roll your HP and roll a 1 or below your class's average HP suggestion/recommendation, according to the PHB, you can choose to reroll. Originally, I thought of allowing unlimited HP rerolls, but I think what I'll do is, you can reroll your HP result, if your unhappy with it upon leveling up, up to your current CON modifier. So, if your CON is a +5, you get five free rerolls if you choose not to go with the average/unhappy with what you got. If your CON is +2, well you only have 2 rerolls.

That's all for now.
 
Last edited:

Okay continuing on now that the Turkey is done cooking.

-Character Races during PC creation
Races, if not starting with a Feat via DM fiat, Supernatural Gifts, whatever all start off with a Racial Feat. Races that share/linked by an ancestry, like Elves/Goblinoids, can take a Racial Feat that can apply to them and each other. (So, for example, Goblinoids can, if they want, choose any of the Racial Feats that can apply to Elves/Half Elves because of the fact that they are related by their key link of the Feywild. Or how Giants/Trolls/whatever PCs would be able to pick from any of the Dwarven Racial Feats. (I'll admit that this is more due to the fact of the whole "small vs large" aspect and the fact that in Disciples II for the PC, the Dwarven army could field Giants.) So, this also means that Firbolgs could take Dwarven Racial Feats because of the fact that they are "giants" pretty much. The Satyr would only be able to pick from the Elven feats. Due to the small list of Racial Feats, alternatives can be sub/made. So I'd allow Humblewood feats/backgrounds to be applied to Aaracroka while Tabaxi Characters can use the rules for picking a unique ability as per Animal Adventures/Secrets of Gullet Cove.) Lizard folk could choose any of the Dragonborne racial feats or "Gift of Metallic/Chromatic/Gem Dragon" as a racial feat since Lizardfolk originally could speak Draconic. Same with Kobold/Yuan-Ti. Shadar-Kai can choose from any Human/Elven/Half Elf Racial Feat. Half-Orcs/Orcs(Ogres) can choose any Orc/Half-Orc Racial Feat. Gnolls can take Tiefling Racial Feats. Etc, etc etc.
 
Last edited:

Musing Mage

Pondering D&D stuff
Ouch! That would make Con a pretty useless stat compared to the others, no?

Maybe consider making the CON mod + 1 the minimum amount they get when they roll?

No it's still a consideration. Con saves come up a lot, as two players have learned. Casters especially still need it for conentration checks, and those 1st level hit points are still all important. So far this particular rule is working with expected parameters. The biggest benefit that players have appreciated, is that monsters are also diminished in HP by the rule, which removes the excessive bloat and makes combat faster and deadlier, more akin to old-school. (which is the aim)
 

Musing Mage

Pondering D&D stuff
Can you elaborate on this a bit since I can see different ways this might work?

The way I run it is that once they choose to take a feat, or to multiclass - that choice is fixed and they can no longer select the other option. A variant human, for instance starts with a feat, meaning that character is committed to being single classed. All other races retain the option for either path until they make a choice and lock it in.

They don't have to make the choice at character generation (unless the aforementioned human variant of course).
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Thanks for sharing! I have only skimmed through at this point, so I may have missed something.
Doesn't the critical hit being determined by the damage die mean d4 weapons like daggers and clubs will get a critical hit more often (25% of hits) than a d8 battleaxe (12.5% of hits)? And both will crit more often than a d10 greatsword (10% of hits)?
You're welcome. I was originally planning on releasing it all when I was done, but at this point with things going on in my life I just decided to share it now and return to it later maybe.

Yes, due to the smaller die size, daggers and other such weapons will result in critical damage more, BUT even with them exploding their average is less than a d6, and the exploding d6 is less than the d8, and so forth. It is actually intended to work that way so it keeps lesser damage weapons appealing still due to the increased chances of getting critical damage.

Why do you have "cleave" as a damage type distinct from slashing?
Because it is really a different type of damage and IMO should have been included from the beginning. At first different armors offered different DR against all four damage types (chain was great against slashing, but not good against pierce or bludgeon, and okay versus cleave, for example). Of course, since then we went to simply average DR instead...
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
The way I run it is that once they choose to take a feat, or to multiclass - that choice is fixed and they can no longer select the other option. A variant human, for instance starts with a feat, meaning that character is committed to being single classed. All other races retain the option for either path until they make a choice and lock it in.

They don't have to make the choice at character generation (unless the aforementioned human variant of course).
Ok, I assumed most of that, so I'll be more specific:

1) A 3rd level Fighter gains 4th level. The player decides to multiclass and pick up a level of Rogue, making them 3/1. Now, next level they take another level of Fighter. Fighter 4 gets an ASI (optionally a feat, but in this case no since they multiclassed). Do they still get the ASI???

What about at 6th level Fighter and the bonus ASI? do they get it (I would think so), so can they use that ASI as a feat??

OR

2) When the 3rd level Fighter becomes 4th, if he takes 4th level Fighter but instead of the ASI gains the features of a Rogue 1 and makes that his multiclass?

Finally, I like this concept (actually version 2 is pretty appealing to me) but if I did it I would allow the variant human to get his feat normally and still multiclass, but then he would never gain another feat. Using the second variant above, this also means a human who multiclassed would start off with 1 "level" of multiclass ahead of other races.

The 2nd variant is appealing because I have experimented with multiclass as subclass, which is obviously different but has some similarities.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I forgot the additional skills in my game.

Weightlifting (Strength)
Endurance (Constitution)
Commerce (Intelligence)
Law (Intelligence)
Nobility (Intelligence)
Dungeoneering (Wisdom)
Etiquette (Charisma)
Streetwise (Charisma)
 

Musing Mage

Pondering D&D stuff
Ok, I assumed most of that, so I'll be more specific:

1) A 3rd level Fighter gains 4th level. The player decides to multiclass and pick up a level of Rogue, making them 3/1. Now, next level they take another level of Fighter. Fighter 4 gets an ASI (optionally a feat, but in this case no since they multiclassed). Do they still get the ASI???

What about at 6th level Fighter and the bonus ASI? do they get it (I would think so), so can they use that ASI as a feat??

OR

2) When the 3rd level Fighter becomes 4th, if he takes 4th level Fighter but instead of the ASI gains the features of a Rogue 1 and makes that his multiclass?

Finally, I like this concept (actually version 2 is pretty appealing to me) but if I did it I would allow the variant human to get his feat normally and still multiclass, but then he would never gain another feat. Using the second variant above, this also means a human who multiclassed would start off with 1 "level" of multiclass ahead of other races.

The 2nd variant is appealing because I have experimented with multiclass as subclass, which is obviously different but has some similarities.

Ah yes, you still get your ASI's if you've chosen to multiclass, you don't lose them... (unless you trade for a feat, of course)

I'm not quite understanding what you're going for with #2 - You can't use your ASI to take Rogue features... you would either take the 4th level in fighter and your ASI (or feat), or take a level in Rogue 1 to be Fighter3/Rogue1.

You can't use the ASI to take class features in another class as a feat... (unless you're referencing some rule from Tasha's or other book, which I'm not using)
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Ah yes, you still get your ASI's if you've chosen to multiclass, you don't lose them... (unless you trade for a feat, of course)
Ok, I thought so but I wanted confirmation because...

I'm not quite understanding what you're going for with #2 - You can't use your ASI to take Rogue features... you would either take the 4th level in fighter and your ASI (or feat), or take a level in Rogue 1 to be Fighter3/Rogue1.

You can't use the ASI to take class features in another class as a feat... (unless you're referencing some rule from Tasha's or other book, which I'm not using)
Yes, with #2 I am basically saying you gain a class's features in lieu of a feat (or ASI for that matter).

No, it wasn't in Tasha's...

Quick intro: Subclass as Multiclass.
Instead of gaining a subclass in your class, you gain the 1st-level features of another class (you do not gain any subclass for this second class). Whenever you would gain a new subclass feature, you gain two levels of features of your second class. You do not gain ASIs for your second class's 4th level.

Ex. A Rogue gains their subclass at 3rd level. Instead of choosing a subclass, the player selects Fighter "as their subclass" and it becomes second class. They gain a Fighting Style and Second Wind.

Later at 9th level, the Rogue gains its next subclass feature, so gains two levels of features from Fighter; in this case just Action Surge (for Fighter 2, but Fighter 3 is the subclass of Fighter, which the Rogue doesn't gain as it is a second class).

At 13th Rogue, the PC gains Fighter 4 and 5 features. Fighter 4 is the ASI, which is NOT gained as a second class, but Fighter 5 is Extra Attack, which would be gained.

Finally, at 17th Rogue the PC gains Fighter 6 and Fighter 7. Fighter 6 ASI is gained as it is a bonus to Fighters, but Fighter 7 is a subclass level for Fighter so nothing is gained.

In the end, you would have Rogue (Fighter) 17, gaining a Fighting Style, Second Wind, Action Surge, Extra Attack, and a feat as your "subclass" features.

Now, this has worked well when we've done it but can be quite powerful at higher levels.

Back to #2:

What I was thinking was similar in that instead of your feats at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels you gained the features for a second class at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively.

Using the Rogue-Fighter concept, this would be a bit different as you would gain subclasses and ASI/feats still:

Rogue 4 would gain a Fighting Style and Second Wind instead of the ASI.
Rogue 8 would gain Action Surge instead of the ASI.
Rogue 12 would gain subclass features for a chosen Fighter subclass instead of the ASI.
Rogue 16 would gain an ASI (from Fighter 4). This could be used for a feat, but ONLY this one.
Rogue 19 would gain Extra Attack instead of the ASI.

The bonus Rogue ASI at level 10 would be an ASI, but could not be used as a feat (or maybe yes???).

So, obviously NOT what you are doing, but that was one way I could see it working...

Thanks for your information!
 


Grantypants

Explorer
One of the places it gets weird is with Clerics. The Cleric is pretty much intended to use a shield (they don't have to, of course, but...) since they need to be in melee range to use their better heals. So you have a Cleric with a weapon and a shield. Thankfully, the Cleric is allowed to use have his holy symbol attached to his shield, so that satisfies material components, but he still needs a free hand to cast spells due to any somatic components.
I used an even easier solution to this problem. RAW, your free hand to provide somatic components can also be the hand holding your material components or spellcasting focus. As DM, I ruled that when a holy symbol is emblazoned on a shield, the whole shield counted as a spellcasting focus, so you can provide the somatic components with your shield hand, no weapon juggling required.
 

I used an even easier solution to this problem. RAW, your free hand to provide somatic components can also be the hand holding your material components or spellcasting focus. As DM, I ruled that when a holy symbol is emblazoned on a shield, the whole shield counted as a spellcasting focus, so you can provide the somatic components with your shield hand, no weapon juggling required.
That just makes sense.
 

Jahydin

Explorer
No it's still a consideration. Con saves come up a lot, as two players have learned. Casters especially still need it for conentration checks, and those 1st level hit points are still all important. So far this particular rule is working with expected parameters. The biggest benefit that players have appreciated, is that monsters are also diminished in HP by the rule, which removes the excessive bloat and makes combat faster and deadlier, more akin to old-school. (which is the aim)
Understood; I hate the hp bloat myself. It's the main reason Castles and Crusades is my main game of late.

Just a shame to see a high-level Con 20 character only differing mathematically by 5 hp to a Con 10 character of the same class.

I still think using Con bonus + 1 as the minimum gained each level would work perfect!

Negative Con would lower your max, of course! :)

Thanks for sharing!
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top