D&D 5E What houserules do we assume is common in the community?

[FrozenNorth]

It is not my problem. I tell players my house rules before the game. It is up for them to decide if it is a game in which they want to play.

I think the issue that @Asisreo is referring to is that certain houserules are so widespread that players assume they are actual rules.

For instance,

• surprise round;
• not tracking encumbrance;
• not enforcing drawing/stowing action economy;
• everyone speaks Common.

So when a DM does not apply these houserules, the players are surprised.

As for me, I never assume that any Session Zero can be sufficiently detailed to address all possible houserules or rule interpretations/interactions.

I expect from my players that if there is an interpretation mismatch, they will bring it up civilly and maturely (and when I play, I do the same).

Often, I will make a spot ruling for the session. If the player’s action was predicated on a different understanding of the rule, they can change their action (Classic example: a player who believes the flanking rules are in play, moves to flank despite the fact he’s an archer because it greatly benefits the monk he’s flanking with).

During clean-up, I will ask the player for their rationale and explain my own. Any other players are also given an opportunity to pipe in.

In all cases, if the character’s build choices are impacted by the ruling, they can rebuild or replace their character.

This is one of the reasons I like the relative simplicity of 5e: there is less room to pick a ton of features that turn out to be useless because of DM interpretation.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I assume stealth will be fubar and handwaved.

Technically, that's RAW.

The logic I have seen is as follows - the typical shield has a strap of the forearm, and a handle for the hand, and that hand can also grasp (but not wield) the sword at need. You use your free interaction with an object to shift the weapon to that shield hand.

I usually just point out that RAW you're allowed to do this:

1. Drop held item (free)
2. Cast spell
3. Pick up item from the ground (free object interaction)

Technically, you can't do that if you're flying, but it covers so much that the "free hand" rule should never be a real limitation. And if you do something simple like add a loop strap to your weapon, then you can do it while flying, too. The "free hand" rule ends up being so narrow that it's not worth bothering about during normal combat.

So for us the unwritten universal house rules would probably be:

1. Ammo is "be reasonable"
2. Encumbrance is "be reasonable"
3. Food & water are "be reasonable"
4. Potions for yourself are a bonus action
5. Handwave the free hand rules for casting, as above
6. Handwave the "draw a weapon" limitations for TWF and thrown weapons

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I usually just point out that RAW you're allowed to do this:

1. Drop held item (free)
2. Cast spell
3. Pick up item from the ground (free object interaction)

one of the smartest dumb things I ever saw someone do was tie there sword to there wrist so they could drop it and it would hang there then they could free action object interaction take it back... all cool until someone double wields light crossbows

 

[Asisreo]

I think the issue that @Asisreo is referring to is that certain houserules are so widespread that players assume they are actual rules.

For instance,

• surprise round;
• not tracking encumbrance;
• not enforcing drawing/stowing action economy;
• everyone speaks Common.

This is generally what I meant, yeah. When I play, I often assume no houserules at all unless explicitly stated. Though, I do understand if a DM or player is so used to a houserule they just assume its active.

I haven't played online D&D with strangers since 5e came out, so I was wondering if I were to play with strangers, what I should call out explicitly, even when the rules say otherwise, to avoid confusion.

 

[Parmandur]

But all I'm saying is that every DM I've played with over the past several years ignored it completely because it's just not worth making players jump through hoops.

Tha seems ao odd to me: enforcing those hoops would seem to an important aspect of game balance to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think much to the detriment of the skill system, we often see climbing and jumping use the best of Athletics or Acrobatics.

And people then complain how useless str is.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh I have one:

You need to take sailor to get perception through background... missing, that those backgrounds are only examples and customizing is the actual rule.

 

[Oofta]

Tha seems ao odd to me: enforcing those hoops would seem to an important aspect of game balance to me.

All it does is makes people play stupid item games. Dropping and then picking up weapons is the most common one I saw. In other cases paladins use two-handed weapons so they can use bonus action spells they're clearly supposed to be using to support their combat effectiveness and so on.

In any case, I'm just relaying what I do and what I've seen other DMs do. For the most part, DMs aren't too concerned about this stuff. Throw in things like switching from a melee weapon to a bow, climbing without taking an action to doff a shield, etc..

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

one of the smartest dumb things I ever saw someone do was tie there sword to there wrist so they could drop it and it would hang there then they could free action object interaction take it back... all cool until someone double wields light crossbows

I've done this with fighter types that have fly cast on them. Mostly in case of being disarmed but also to allow the flexibility to free a hand, if needed.

 

[MarkB]

Oh I have one:

You need to take sailor to get perception through background... missing, that those backgrounds are only examples and customizing is the actual rule.

Or the ones who cunningly take a class skill that overlaps with one of their background skills so that they can exercise the "if you already have this proficiency" clause to pick a different one, not realising they can do it anyway.