What DMG Alternate Rules are you using in your games?

[andhaira]

So the DMG provided plenty of new alternate rules. Which are you using in your games , why are you using them and what sort of impact have they had?

Finally, after using a certain rule(s) did you switch back to not using it?

[Blacky the Blackball]

The only optional rules from the DMG that we use are:

1) Yes, you can buy magic items. We don't have "magic item shops" but we do have specialist dealers in most cities - and the bigger the city, the more they'll have available. I can't say what impact it's had because we've not tried without it.

2) We use the "Story-Based Advancement" version of the "Level Advancement Without XP" rule. In other words, the party go up a level when it's dramatically appropriate for them to do so. My group prefer this to fiddling about tracking XP, and it also promotes a more freeform game. Because XP isn't tied to treasure or killing things, there's no overriding incentive to obsessively chase after either of those.

I suggested also using the "Proficiency Dice" option, but my players weren't keen on it.

[hymer]

Off the top of my head: Tumbling and training to level.

[Gwendol]

The combat options (cleaving, climbing on larger creature, disarming, tumbling, etc).

[DrBurr]

In my brother's campaign we use renaissance weaponry.

[Madfellow]

I just recently implemented the Slow Natural Healing rule in my ongoing Tyranny of Dragons campaign. It was only a short time ago, so we haven't seen a big impact from it yet.

[Giant2005]

I convinced my DM in one game I play in to allow the spell point variant.

[Grand Warchief]

Cleaving, shoving, hero points, massive damage, and spell points are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Most have had very little impact, but some are more impressive.

Massive damage: This one almost killed a player the other night. We were level 2 and our Paladin had 20 hit points. He gets stabbed in the kidney by a level 1 rogue assassin and is dealt 13 damage. (yes that's almost max damage the dm rolled well we all saw) The pally fails his save and rolls a 6 on the system shock table giving him disadvantage on attack rolls. He then tries to attack the rogue. Rolls a 20 and a 2. Dat disadvantage. He would have been able to kill the rogue in one hit but no, gotta take the 2. The rogue then Attacks The Paladin again and rolls 9 damage this time, knocking him unconscious, bleeding out. Now we ended up winning the combat but the pally was our only healer, the party consisting of a sorcerer, warlock, pally, and fighter, none of which had medicine but the pally ofc. Now, the pally sucked at rolling his death saves, which brings me to my next point...

Hero Points: Our dm was kind enough to let us have hero points, though he limited it to 3 instead of 5. As our pally began the slow process of dying, he started rolling his death saves. Rolls a 4...then a 7...then a 5. He's going crazy until the fighter says, just use your hero points. So he turns the 5 into a success. He then rolls again next round, hoping to roll better. He rolls a 9. Uses a point and takes another success. The dice God's are against him and he fails again, forcing him to spend his last hero point. If it weren't for them, he would be a dead pally.

Conclusion: take the same scenario and remove the variants, and you have the same outcome, but with a less frustrated, less unlucky Paladin. The variants add lots of depth to the game that I think makes it more fun. Clearly this pally was destined not to die, after all, they are called Hero Points.

TL;DR: Variants add depth and character to an already amazing and fun system, just use them with caution and always consider the outcomes before hand to the best of your abilities. Remember, it's all about fun and telling a great story.

As a side note, the casters absolutely love the spell point variant, as it allows for huge versatility in spell usage.

[archaeo]

Interestingly, most of the replies I've seen to this question and other threads like it tend to have people saying they're using the player-punishing rules in the DMG (massive damage, slow healing, etc.) rather than the player-rewarding rules. I can only think that this is because the DMG doesn't do a super job explaining how you can balance encounters once you've left the PHB's expectation of the rules; I imagine tables would be more willing to turn up players' power if the DM felt like they knew how to challenge those players. It isn't actually that hard to do -- you just increase the difficulty session by session until you figure out where you need to be to challenge players -- but I think people get too worried about letting the players get overpowered.

Personally, I think that those unfamiliar with 5e should start with the vanilla rules and then see what the table thinks about the system, maybe with an accelerated campaign. Then you can workshop with the group to find a set of options that will fine-tune the system to fit the table.

[Grand Warchief]

Interestingly, most of the replies I've seen to this question and other threads like it tend to have people saying they're using the player-punishing rules in the DMG (massive damage, slow healing, etc.) rather than the player-rewarding rules. I can only think that this is because the DMG doesn't do a super job explaining how you can balance encounters once you've left the PHB's expectation of the rules; I imagine tables would be more willing to turn up players' power if the DM felt like they knew how to challenge those players. It isn't actually that hard to do -- you just increase the difficulty session by session until you figure out where you need to be to challenge players -- but I think people get too worried about letting the players get overpowered.

Personally, I think that those unfamiliar with 5e should start with the vanilla rules and then see what the table thinks about the system, maybe with an accelerated campaign. Then you can workshop with the group to find a set of options that will fine-tune the system to fit the table.

It's not always about increasing the difficulty or adding more monsters, I know I personally think it's better to add depth and I think a lot of the variants do that nicely. :)

[mephnick]

I use all the combat technique options, like overrun and shoving. I don't see why anyone wouldn't. I also use massive damage and injuries on reaching 0hp.

[archaeo]

It's not always about increasing the difficulty or adding more monsters, I know I personally think it's better to add depth and I think a lot of the variants do that nicely. :)

Oh, certainly. I just find it interesting that people who want to add depth to 5e typically want to do it by adding more challenges rather than giving the players more power. It's just an interesting dynamic, not an incorrect impulse.

[Grand Warchief]

Oh, certainly. I just find it interesting that people who want to add depth to 5e typically want to do it by adding more challenges rather than giving the players more power. It's just an interesting dynamic, not an incorrect impulse.

Touche. I know in the example I gave we all had a ton of laughs :) but it's all about what the group wants

[Fwiffo86]

We are not using any alternate rules from any book. The game appears to be fantastically balanced in our experience.

Though, the wound rules seem interesting to me. As well as proficiency dice. The problem with them arises when you must deal with things that you add proficiency to, but lie outside of general usage.

[T.G. Oskar]

Though it's still a bit early, I went for the Heroic recovery time, to the glee of one of my players and the disdain of another (and, to an extent, mine). The player who wanted that chose a Bard, while the one who didn't chose a Fighter. You can figure why that might happen - everyone is at full power after 1 hour of "long rest", whereas when we attempted to do a 1-hour short rest in our first run, the same Bard player (who played a Rogue in that occasion) was furious, because "he couldn't recover well from his wounds". I was proposing an alternative closer to 4e, with a 5-min. short rest and a 8-hr. long rest, but...the player claimed favoritism.

While I allowed them, I haven't seen anyone using the alternate combat maneuvers (disarm, mark, overrun), so...they're there, but not used exactly.

I'll also allow Hero Points, but after a pivotal moment in the campaign. The party just had their first proper quest, so I figured they could play without Hero Points until that happened.

Of course, we also use grid-based combat over TotM, being used to 3e for so long. I also want to use the blessings and charms as rewards, and downtime training of skills and feats, but the game hasn't developed any further to present them.

Suggested Proficiency Dice mostly half-heartedly, and the group declined.

[JFahy]

Interestingly, most of the replies I've seen to this question and other threads like it tend to have people saying they're using the player-punishing rules in the DMG (massive damage, slow healing, etc.) rather than the player-rewarding rules.

Be careful with assuming that 'makes life harder for the characters' = 'punishing the players'.
Some players are perfectly happy in a world where life is more dangerous for their characters.
(Hell, some people play Call of Cthulhu. :smallamused:)

[mephnick]

Some players are perfectly happy in a world where life is more dangerous for their characters.
(Hell, some people play Call of Cthulhu. :smallamused:)

There's not much cooler than going insane and attempting to eat the tentacle of an ancient evil, then having said evil explode you from the inside.

[Totema]

All of the optional combat actions are ostensibly in effect, because it's quasi-RAW in the PHB as well. (What with the suggestion to improvise combat actions - the ones provided in the DMG are "examples" of this at my table... I'm not terribly fond of the mark action though, it seems really gamey and not really flavorful) I also play with the massive damage rule, which my players seem to enjoy. Finally I often like to implement something like their injury and morale rules, but I mostly play it ad hoc and whenever it seems appropriate to me, instead of being hard and fast.

[Grand Warchief]

All of the optional combat actions are ostensibly in effect, because it's quasi-RAW in the PHB as well. (What with the suggestion to improvise combat actions - the ones provided in the DMG are "examples" of this at my table) I also play with the massive damage rule, which my players seem to enjoy. Finally I often like to implement something like their injury and morale rules, but I mostly play it ad hoc and whenever it seems appropriate to me, instead of being hard and fast.

Permission to use your hilarious picture?

[Totema]

Permission to use your hilarious picture?

You mean in my sig? Go for it, man.