Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 2300078" data-attributes="member: 633">It isn't a matter of how many house rules. It isn't even a matter of what these house rules are. The points are different.1) Why did the DM introduce the house rule? Good reasons include: it reinforces a specific flavor; it streamlines gameplay; it makes gameplay more realistic; it makes gameplay more detailed; it provides better balance; it shifts control to the DM; it shifts control to the player. They are all good reasons, in different ways. The presence of a good reason proves that the DM isn't tossing around house rules just to screw his players, that he isn't changing stuff because he saw it in the latest manga, that he isn't changing stuff just to spite the RAW, and that he doesn't have a compulsory habit of adding house rules just because. I've seen all these, uhm, "styles" of houseruling, and none of them work for me.2) Did the DM think through the implications of the house rule? For example, damage to body parts is a good way of making combat a lot more realistic. It also means that I can probably kill or maim anyone with true strike followed by a called shot to the eye with a scorching ray. And that regenerate should probably be lower level. And that armor should become part-based too. And that you need specific parts for every nonhumanoid monster. And rules to see when/if you can hit giants in the head. And... if the DM changed something important and left everything else as is, chances are that I wouldn't have fun there.</blockquote>

Verification