D&D 5E What requested rules change have you refused to change?

[MNblockhead]

Fumble rules: they clearly penalize some characters more than others. Nope, not going to do it.

Same boat. As a DM, if my players really wanted to use fumble rules, I guess I would break out the Nord critical failure decks that came with my critical hit decks. I mean it will affect them as much or more than their enemies. As a player, if I was in a campaign that used fumble rules, it would greatly influence what character class I played. No way am I playing a dual wielding fighter.

 

[Ancalagon]

Same boat. As a DM, if my players really wanted to use fumble rules, I guess I would break out the Nord critical failure decks that came with my critical hit decks. I mean it will affect them as much or more than their enemies. As a player, if I was in a campaign that used fumble rules, it would greatly influence what character class I played. No way am I playing a dual wielding fighter.

or monk, warlock, archer with hand crossbow...

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I refuse to change encumbrance A player complained that they couldn't carry heavy armour and big weapons and spellbook without losing speed. I have no sympathy, that's the price they pay for a wizard with 23 AC (28 with shield arrgghh).

 

[Azuresun]

Same boat. As a DM, if my players really wanted to use fumble rules, I guess I would break out the Nord critical failure decks that came with my critical hit decks. I mean it will affect them as much or more than their enemies. As a player, if I was in a campaign that used fumble rules, it would greatly influence what character class I played. No way am I playing a dual wielding fighter.

Just play a halfling. Cuts the chance of randomly chucking your weapon across the room or turning 180 degrees and stabbing an ally to one in 400 rather than 1 in 20.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not sure I'd play in a game where we didn't roll for h.p.

That's nothing. In my game we roll to see how much your attack bonus improves each level (if at all), and how many new spell slots you get (if any).

 

[Lanefan]

That's nothing. In my game we roll to see how much your attack bonus improves each level (if at all), and how many new spell slots you get (if any).

Never rolled for attack improvements but in the homebrew spell point system we used for ages (and still do in the game I play in), those were rolled just like hit points but with more modifiers.

Now I use slots again, but there's still a random element in that at each level-up (during training) you roll to see if you get an extra slot above and beyond what you'd normlly get, that can be assigned to any level unless it makes a level have more slots than a lower level. Once assigned, these bonus slots are pretty much locked in for life; the only way to get a do-over is to lose a level or two and then regain the old level(s) the hard way (i.e. without Restoration) and re-train. Or by a Wish, I suppose, but I think if someone got access to a Wish this would be a long way down the priority list.

So, if someone has 6-3-3 slots and rolls into an assignable bonus slot it couldn't go on 3rd level as 3rd would then have more slots than 2nd, meaning 7-3-3- or 6-4-3 are the only options.

 

[ECMO3]

Same boat. As a DM, if my players really wanted to use fumble rules, I guess I would break out the Nord critical failure decks that came with my critical hit decks. I mean it will affect them as much or more than their enemies. As a player, if I was in a campaign that used fumble rules, it would greatly influence what character class I played. No way am I playing a dual wielding fighter.

If critical fumbles are in the game I am playing a halfling.