Your favorite house rules

[Stormonu]

What are your favorite homebrew/house rules that you've implemented for the D&D game over the years?

 

[scourger]

My favorite house rule was sticking to the core game. I learned it in 2e and carried it over the 3e. It made my game manageable and much more fun.

 

[trancejeremy]

When hit points run out, instead of dying, characters take damage to the constitution. And when that runs out, they're dead/dying.

Takes the edge off of lower levels, but I see that as a plus

 

[delericho]

For 3.5e:

No favoured classes - characters can multiclass freely.

No multiclass restrictions on Paladins and Monks - characters can multiclass freely.

Fixed hit points per level (3 for the d4 classes, 5 for the d6/d8 classes, 7 for the d10/d12 classes). At 1st level, characters get the same as above, plus 5 hit points (that is, 8, 10 or 12 hit points). Con modifier applies normally.

Pathfinder skill rules.

For almost all campaigns, I use a "no prestige classes" rule.

 

[Croesus]

For 3.5e:

No favoured classes - characters can multiclass freely.

No multiclass restrictions on Paladins and Monks - characters can multiclass freely.

Fixed hit points per level (3 for the d4 classes, 5 for the d6/d8 classes, 7 for the d10/d12 classes). At 1st level, characters get the same as above, plus 5 hit points (that is, 8, 10 or 12 hit points). Con modifier applies normally.

Our hit points were the more standard "1/2 die type + 1" per level past 1st, but otherwise this matches my group to a "T".

On a more general "table rules" theme:

- When creating characters, it's the players' responsibility to figure out why they are adventuring together. No more wasting the first session having some of the characters argue about why they would possibly trust "that elf", who happens to be one of the PC's.

- No loners. No chaotic neutrals. No evil characters. No disruptive characters. No characters played in a way that detracts from another player's fun. This is a group game - a player who doesn't like that is free to play a computer game.

- If using flaws, no creating a character who is either 1000%/0%. By this I mean characters who, in ideal circumstances, are far, far better than everyone else, but in less than ideal circumstances, are worthless. Flaws should limit a character, but still leave them playable. Builds should make a character competent, not overpowered compared to everyone else.

- Be honest about the type of game we want. If the players want to just kick butt and take names, fine. If they want deep roleplaying and attachment to the game world, fine. If they want PC death to be rare - or not - either is fine by me. But when I ask what type of game you want, tell me. Otherwise, no one ends up having fun.

- The party (players) decide how to split treasure. As GM, I'll roleplay the reactions of the NPC's to such discussion/decisions, but ultimately this is up to the players.

 

[TarionzCousin]

My favorite house rules:

1. If it increases the "coolness" level of the game and doesn't ruin anything, then yes, you can do it.

2. If you give an entertaining description of exactly how you're trying to do something (combat, skill check, etc) of at least three good sentences, you get a +1 to the d20 roll. All the players judge if it's entertaining enough, with the DM having the final say. For exceptionally awesome descriptions I've given a +2 or an automatic success.

 

[delericho]

Our hit points were the more standard "1/2 die type + 1" per level past 1st, but otherwise this matches my group to a "T".

I used to do that, too, but I also had a house rules whereby characters who multiclassed might gain a small booster in hit points (and skill points), to bring them up to where they 'should' be, if they'd taken the classes in the optimum order. But I was never really happy with that, as the players tended not to 'get it' easily - my revised rule (and Pathfinder skills) knocks that on the head.

- When creating characters, it's the players' responsibility to figure out why they are adventuring together. No more wasting the first session having some of the characters argue about why they would possibly trust "that elf", who happens to be one of the PC's.

Yep, I do that too. But, as with you, it's not really a house rule, so much as a campaign shortcut.

- No loners. No chaotic neutrals. No evil characters. No disruptive characters. No characters played in a way that detracts from another player's fun. This is a group game - a player who doesn't like that is free to play a computer game.

Yep, that too. I don't have a problem with particular alignments, per se, but characters do need to fit the team. (An LG Paladin in a band of cut-throat mercenaries can be as disruptive as a CN Barbarian in a group of Big Damn Heroes.)

- If using flaws, no creating a character who is either 1000%/0%. By this I mean characters who, in ideal circumstances, are far, far better than everyone else, but in less than ideal circumstances, are worthless. Flaws should limit a character, but still leave them playable. Builds should make a character competent, not overpowered compared to everyone else.

Yeah, I don't use flaws. In my experience, very few games handle them well.

- Be honest about the type of game we want. If the players want to just kick butt and take names, fine. If they want deep roleplaying and attachment to the game world, fine. If they want PC death to be rare - or not - either is fine by me. But when I ask what type of game you want, tell me. Otherwise, no one ends up having fun.

Hadn't ever really considered that, but it's a great thought.

- The party (players) decide how to split treasure. As GM, I'll roleplay the reactions of the NPC's to such discussion/decisions, but ultimately this is up to the players.

Yep.

 

[Li Shenron]

House rules of the type "change how rule X works", I've used quite a bunch along the years but typically retracted them all later. The 3.0 core game as-is, is quite fine after all.

House rules about the material allowed/disallowed are another thing, and I see them mostly as a way to characterize different campaigns from each other (yes, also to prevent some abuse).

Then there are "meta house rules", like what to do with absent players for instance.

My favourite meta house rule is intra-party conflict is forbidden. More specifically, you don't attack or harm in any way another PC, you don't steal from another PC, you don't betray the party to the evil guys. Actually, if you want to do any of that "because my character would really do this", you can, but only if everybody else at the gaming table is fine with it and ready to accept the consequences. Otherwise, just no.

 

[Rune]

I don't remember any of the many houserules I used back in the 2e days. They probably weren't that great anyway.

In 3e, I kept things pretty simple. Aside from stylistic houserules based on the setting, I did make one deliberate change to the Toughness feat. I had the feat also add -3 hit points, in addition to the +3 hit points that it normally added (meaning a character who had taken the feat once would die at -13 hit points, instead of -10). This made the feat particularly attractive to someone who also had Diehard.

In 4e (and other games I currently run, such as an E6 Trailblazer game), aside from stylistic houserules based on the setting, I utilize a variety of rules that provide incentive for the players to play the game I want to run. In particular, two have been extremely beneficial to my games:

1 - Karma Points: The idea is not new, but in my games, I allow for both heroic deeds accomplished within the game and deeds done by players outside of the game that specifically make my job as DM easier to accumulate such points. These points can be used in any game I run for a mechanical benefit (turning a hit into a miss or vise versa, turning a hit into a crit, making a save, etc.), or, more popularly, to change the plot on me. This type of usage has significantly altered the course of campaigns.

2 - Levels Through Quests: The problem with XP is not that it's overly-fiddly (although it is), it is that it assumes that the players fight (and succeed). A lot. Some will (and that's okay with me), but some groups will (and do) prefer to find other means of accomplishing their goals, and I want to reward that behavior no less than I would a hack-and-slash party. I do that by advancing players a level based on a number of quests accomplished (with each minor quest being equal to a fraction of a major quest--2:1 or 3:1 work pretty well). This puts the focus squarely on getting the job done, and does not care what means the party chooses to do it.

 

[the Jester]

"Colorful critical hits" that break limbs, chop off bits of the victim, knock you prone, etc.