D&D 5E Your Favorite 5e Houserule

[overgeeked]

So you mean they have to succeed on two rolls for a spell to damage an enemy? Or do you mean that missed attack rolls are spell failures?

The second. One roll to do a thing. But to do the thing should be a roll. Attack or save. Whatever.

 

[Mannahnin]

I keep it one casting roll in 5TD. Though after a few months of play I changed the rules so it isn't a miscast on EVERY failed spell. It's only a full miscast in my game if you miss the roll by 5 or more, or roll a 1 on the casting roll in any event.

 

[Blue]

Yep, agree. And for my table and my players, the best way to handle it that I've found is to start mentally adjusting the DCs when they start spamming the cantrip. They still get to cast the spell and get that all-important bonus, and I have a way of pushing-back on it that they can't argue with.

I don't really want to deal with house-ruling it or banning it. It's not worth the arguments and sore feelings.

Just as a side comment, this is something I would legitimately quit a DM's table for. If you don't want it, house rule it away. Or talk to us as adults and fellow hobbyist about the expectations of it in play. Instead taking away player agency secretly by mechanically nullifying it feels like it's a egregious violation of our social contract that could have be trivially handled in a positive way. And that it wasn't makes me never trust that that DM isn't doing it elsewhere. "Well, the players had good tactics but I want the villian to be able to get off these things, so I'll increase his saves so it doesn't stop him" or whatever.

 

[overgeeked]

Just as a side comment, this is something I would legitimately quit a DM's table for. If you don't want it, house rule it away. Or talk to us as adults and fellow hobbyist about the expectations of it in play. Instead taking away player agency secretly by mechanically nullifying it feels like it's a egregious violation of our social contract that could have be trivially handled in a positive way. And that it wasn't makes me never trust that that DM isn't doing it elsewhere. "Well, the players had good tactics but I want the villian to be able to get off these things, so I'll increase his saves so it doesn't stop him" or whatever.

So you'd walk if you caught wind of the DM adjusting monsters mid fight? In 37 years of playing D&D I don't think there's a single DM I've played with who hasn't done that.

 

[TwoSix]

So you'd walk if you caught wind of the DM adjusting monsters mid fight? In 37 years of playing D&D I don't think there's a single DM I've played with who hasn't done that.

I'm in the middle. A lot of monsters I'm literally writing the stats down as the fight starts, but once I declare they have a certain modifier ("Ok, they have a +6 to Wisdom saves") I don't change it.

 

[Blue]

So you'd walk if you caught wind of the DM adjusting monsters mid fight? In 37 years of playing D&D I don't think there's a single DM I've played with who hasn't done that.

Please notice the parts about the original DM doing it regularly, not doing it to address balance but because they didn't like a particular ability, and not addressing the ability in a mature way or even openly houseruling it, but rather making a hidden change and wasting everyone's time for it to occur and get rolled, in a way that players think they are making a difference but they are not.

I guess a combat equivalent would be a DM who regularly ignores the rogue's sneak attack because they don't think it should be that easy to get, and instead of banning the class, houseruling it, or even talkign to the players he wants to make sneak attack rare, instead has the player roll the sneak attack damage every time but only applies it in rare situations where it's a backstab from the rear and when previously hidden.

And yes, I'd leave the table over that as well.

 

[billd91]

So you'd walk if you caught wind of the DM adjusting monsters mid fight? In 37 years of playing D&D I don't think there's a single DM I've played with who hasn't done that.

For me, it would depend on what they're adjusting and why. I can sympathize with Blue about how he'd feel if the DM nerfed an ability behind the scenes just because he didn't like how it was being used. That's pretty passive-aggressive. It's better to just come right out with a problem with guidance than quietly negating it.
I've posted on these boards before that I don't have a problem with a bit of fudging around if the die results are contrary to the spirit of the ongoing game - but that doesn't mean I'm on board with fudging away the party's achievements or trashing their agency simply because I don't like what they're doing or how they're doing it. That's a subject for an adult discussion of expectations, not clandestine sabotage.

 

[CleverNickName]

Just as a side comment, this is something I would legitimately quit a DM's table for. If you don't want it, house rule it away. Or talk to us as adults and fellow hobbyist about the expectations of it in play. Instead taking away player agency secretly by mechanically nullifying it feels like it's a egregious violation of our social contract that could have be trivially handled in a positive way. And that it wasn't makes me never trust that that DM isn't doing it elsewhere. "Well, the players had good tactics but I want the villian to be able to get off these things, so I'll increase his saves so it doesn't stop him" or whatever.

I didn't say I did it "regularly," only after the player started abusing it.

But, I mean fair enough; that's as good enough of a reason to quit a group as any other. The DM could also ask the player to leave, or remove the Guidance cantrip from the game, or house-rule it into impotency...and all of them look unfair from the player's perspective (to varying degrees, depending on the player). They aren't breaking any rules, so it's always going to feel like they are being punished for "using good tactics."

The Guidance cantrip doesn't need fixing at everyone's table. And for those that need it, not everyone is going to fix it the same way. I find the best fix is an invisible one. The table in the DMG suggests a DC 15 for a "Medium" challenge; I use 17 instead. (shrug)

 

[overgeeked]

I didn't say I did it "regularly," only after the player started abusing it.

But, I mean fair enough; that's as good enough of a reason to quit a group as any other. The DM could also ask the player to leave, or remove the Guidance cantrip from the game, or house-rule it into impotency...and all of them look unfair from the player's perspective (to varying degrees, depending on the player). They aren't breaking any rules, so it's always going to feel like they are being punished for "using good tactics."

The Guidance cantrip doesn't need fixing at everyone's table. And for those that need it, not everyone is going to fix it the same way. I find the best fix is an invisible one. The table in the DMG suggests a DC 15 for a "Medium" challenge; I use 17 instead. (shrug)

Yeah, guidance spam is annoying. I'd rather ban it outright as it eliminates the players shouting "GUIDANCE!" every time someone's about to roll something. I don't mind the spell per se, but the shouting "GUIDANCE!" every time someone's about to roll can die in a fire. But yeah, I'm with them. Just tell your players you're banning it rather than change the DCs to account for it. That seems off.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, guidance spam is annoying. I'd rather ban it outright as it eliminates the players shouting "GUIDANCE!" every time someone's about to roll something. I don't mind the spell per se, but the shouting "GUIDANCE!" every time someone's about to roll can die in a fire. But yeah, I'm with them. Just tell your players you're banning it rather than chance the DCs to account for it. That seems off.

I always run guidance so that if the player is shouting out guidance then it is too late to use it. If they instead get to a chasm that they need to cross and an acrobatics check is needed to cross a thin platform, then guidance is a great addition. If I call for a perception check or someone says that they try to recall a piece of information with History, then there isn't the time to cast guidance to help with it.