Campaign houserules idea

[Theodoxus]

Hey Playground,

Would you play in a game with the following Houserules meant to create a grittier experience...

1) Standard Array for character creation.

2) ASIs can only be spent on Feats. Thus, only "half feats" will increase stats. Because of this, every race will provide a +2 to one "off stat" (Cha, Int or Str) and 2 +1 to any other stats rather than their book standard. Also, because of this houserule, Resilience can be taken a max of twice rather than once.

3) The following spellcasters may use Spell Points rather than Spell Slots: Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock.

Specifically #2 - as it's the most confining. The idea is that I'd have lower DCs for most things (allowing for more 'luck' than skill for challenges, but also a lot more "yes" when asked if a player can do something) and a lot more auto success for things that would otherwise need a check.

The classic "I swing from a chandelier and kick the bad guy from behind, knocking him to the ground" scenario that is typically used as an example of what the rules don't expressly allow... These types of things, because the characters aren't going to be powerhouses of stat points, should be more forthcoming (counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I like heroics, not heroes... one shouldn't be as strong as Hercules or a dexterous as the Flash to do daring death-defying feats like Errol Flynn...

Anyway, given this concept and groundwork, are there any other houserules you think would enhance this lower powered but more freeform playstyle?

[ChubbyRain]

No.

Mainly because there is nothing to entice me to that table.

Instead of giving me options and cool new things, you are locking me down.

What if I don't want to take any feats? What if I don't want to deal with spell points?

The skill system already is fine the way it is. People just need to use it correctly (typically lower DCs by 5 in most cases haha) and you will get great effects.

Also, luck based skills suck. I love having a character and knowing what I can do with him straight up without guessing.

[Flashy]

This ruleset isn't really lower powered or particularly gritty.

Capping people at 16s (albeit softly) doesn't really make all that much difference in the course of long term play. +2 to hit and +2 damage isn't making or breaking a 10th level character. There also aren't really that many feats. Every caster will grab spell sniper, warcaster, and resilient. Every martial will grab a weapon feat, resilient, and maybe a couple of utility options tied to their primary stats.

Spellpoints add flexibility, rather than removing it. Importantly, nothing here mitigates the progression through the tiers of play. Eventually the casters will get world shaping magic and be able to cast it quite freely.


If you want a grittier campaign just plan a progression that ends in the level 6-9 range. Slow experience gain a bit (making it clear to players this will be happening) and you should be largely fine.

[Breashios]

After reading the two replies above I kind of agree. Don't see anything that will make gameplay grittier or more heroic mechanically. What you do as DM will set that tone more than the mechanics or restrictions you put on character options. Maybe the meaning of gritty is not the same?

What specifically is an example of grittier to you?

[ChubbyRain]

If you want a grittier game you have to do A LOT of cuts on spells.

Cleric and Wizard laugh at the idea of grittiness. Even with an 8 in their main ability scores allows them to break the gritty game play.

They have too many spells and too many spells that bring conveyance.

Too me, grittiness is 2e. Pick and choose your actions carefully, run away sometimes, can't just spam anything.

5e doesn't allow for this without a lot of cuts.

[Theodoxus]

No.

Mainly because there is nothing to entice me to that table.

Instead of giving me options and cool new things, you are locking me down.

What if I don't want to take any feats? What if I don't want to deal with spell points?

The skill system already is fine the way it is. People just need to use it correctly (typically lower DCs by 5 in most cases haha) and you will get great effects.

Also, luck based skills suck. I love having a character and knowing what I can do with him straight up without guessing.

About the only thing you wouldn't be able to do is not take feats. It's an odd thing to rail against, but ok.

Spell points are optional - it's what the "may" means. it isn't forced, I know a lot of people don't like spell points - that's fine. But I wanted to make sure if I offer them, there are some classes that don't get them.

As for luck, have you played much? 5E is extremely swingy. The most knowledgeable character, with expertise, rocking a 20 attribute can still roll a 2 and fail to notice a detail or not know a fact, while the no nothing lazy curmudgeon sloppily rolls a 20 and outshines your "knowing what I can do with him" character. I'm looking at ways at curtailing that - but instead of offering up constructive criticism, you just criticise... if it's not for you, walk past, don't lambast - it's not cool.

[ChubbyRain]

About the only thing you wouldn't be able to do is not take feats. It's an odd thing to rail against, but ok.

Spell points are optional - it's what the "may" means. it isn't forced, I know a lot of people don't like spell points - that's fine. But I wanted to make sure if I offer them, there are some classes that don't get them.

As for luck, have you played much? 5E is extremely swingy. The most knowledgeable character, with expertise, rocking a 20 attribute can still roll a 2 and fail to notice a detail or not know a fact, while the no nothing lazy curmudgeon sloppily rolls a 20 and outshines your "knowing what I can do with him" character. I'm looking at ways at curtailing that - but instead of offering up constructive criticism, you just criticise... if it's not for you, walk past, don't lambast - it's not cool.

I know plenty of people who have turned down games because of feats.

Also, these rules don't make the game grittier in the slightest. Having a game where you are gritty, but your allies are not, makes not for a gritty game.

There is no reason to play under these house rules above any other game.

Therr is nothing overly special about this set of house rules and out of everything it restricts players without giving access to anything neat. Spell points are always an option, these rules don't really give me anything but take away many things.

[JeenLeen]

I wouldn't like these houserules, but if it was with a group of friends and that's what our DM wanted to run, I'd be willing to play it. Might prefer it if I want to min-max given these rules (see third paragraph of this post.)

Standard array is annoying to me, since I'd rather point-buy, but not critical. We'd still be balanced with other PCs.
I prefer the fun of feats to the mechanics of ASIs, so that's probably a plus for me. Removes the choice and lets me feel okay taking subpar feats. (I reckon I would dislike how this lowers my accuracy a bit, in the long run, and it would probably make me not want to be a spellcaster due to decreased spell DCs.)
I'm not familiar with spell points, but since it's an option... well, that's nice to have options.

The extra stat increases, which I take it is on top of standard array and racial increases, adds a lot of build flexibility. Sure, my rogue's Dex won't be maxed out, but I'd have decent other stats which lets me potentially do more things. I could actually see potentially abusing this by choosing a race that generally doesn't mesh with one's class, and putting your highest standard array number and the +2 in whatever that class' primary stat is. Something like a dwarf warlock, for example.
Assuming multiclassing is allowed, this helps with that as you can more easily get 13 in whatever stats you want.

So, not very attractive, but not a reason to reject the game, either.

[Breashios]

I'd love to help with constructive suggestions on how to make the campaign grittier, but I still don't understand your definition of gritty. My definition would change the death save mechanism or remove certain spells or rely completely on creating a world in which the game is played that has that tone, perhaps restrictions of available resources, etc.. And if your use of "gritty" was a mistake and you are actually trying to provide something else, just let us know. I've posted inaccurately plenty of times, so that is not a real problem. I have yet to understand, though, what you are really going for here.

[Grod_The_Giant]

[QUOTE=Theodoxus;21642740the following Houserules meant to create a grittier experience...
I'd have lower DCs for most things...
These types of things, because the characters aren't going to be powerhouses of stat points, should be more forthcoming...[/QUOTE]
Your houserules will do the opposite of making things grittier. They'll leave characters marginally behind the expected RNG curve at higher levels (might grant a free stat boost or two at level 10 or so), but literally everything else will make them feel more heroic. Easier skill checks, encouragement of flashy stunts, and doubling down on fun feat-based abilities will all result in character who look and feel more heroic, not less.

Grittiness isn't about hitting the DCs so much as what those DCs let you do. It's about playing character who have to obey the laws of physics, who have to count arrows and rations, who can't just bounce back from nearly dying, who regularly have to deal with fights and situations too difficult for conventional tactics.

[ChubbyRain]

Your houserules will do the opposite of making things grittier. They'll leave characters marginally behind the expected RNG curve at higher levels (might grant a free stat boost or two at level 10 or so), but literally everything else will make them feel more heroic. Easier skill checks, encouragement of flashy stunts, and doubling down on fun feat-based abilities will all result in character who look and feel more heroic, not less.

Grittiness isn't about hitting the DCs so much as what those DCs let you do. It's about playing character who have to obey the laws of physics, who have to count arrows and rations, who can't just bounce back from nearly dying, who regularly have to deal with fights and situations too difficult for conventional tactics.

Adding off this, it isnt just Martials that need to feel gritty, but magic users too.

Make cantrip 3 or 4 uses a short or long rest goes a loooong way in making the game feel grittier for many people. Getting rid of healing word also gives meaning to Spare the Dying (StD is a bonus action in my groups games...) and makes the world feel more dangerous.

It really breaks immersion when only Martials are pushed to be gritty and the casters are over there going crazy with all sorts of abilities.

When I think gritty, I think hard mode/no short cuts. Magic is all about having a short cut and making things easier. Having them need to ration spells and arrows put s them on par with the Martials who are rationing arrows and how broken their melee weapons are.

[2D8HP]

My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Sometimes Convince

Sometimes heal

And one could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!

Except for my one Cantrip High elf PC that I briefly played which may be effected by your spell point house rule, all the changes you propose look to be too "in the weeds" for me to notice.

None of them seem very complex, so all else being equal I'd play.

The changes that do scare me away are ones that add too much (for me) complexity, or too many options all at once (i.e. starting at high levels, a "budget" for magic items).

Let me play a "vanilla" archer or thief and I'm happy, load me up with minutia and I walk.

[Typhon]

Shifting rules doesn't really "feel" like it is any grittier. Limitations are visible, but limitations never do much to make things grittier. More of it will have to do with the theme/setting and how the campaign advances.

I do appreciate the slowed level progression, slightly prolonged development can be good for character/player development. I would say don't make it easier to offset what you have already thought out.

As a thought, think about adjusting mechanics so there are consequences and negative outcomes for certain actions and choices. Specifically, bring in the negative modifiers from 3.x and have people choose their race before rolling stats. Someone mentioned that they think 2e for grit, add some 2e rules to add that grit. Hard set stat requirements for classes will not be popular, but it might make people really think about the class they can take over what they want to take. Just a thought, totally up to you as to what you decide.

[Dhuraal]

My current games are not particularly "gritty" but here is a house rule that I use, in regards to death saving throws and dying, and my players seem to like it (a player is using it for his own game that he is DMing). Feel free to use it yourself.

Death Saves
3 non consecutive successes to live; 6 non consecutive fails to die
If the character lives; Roll 1d6 + # fails
If value is 6+; the character receives a Lingering Injury
If your number of fails is 3 or more, do not be surprised by the severity of the injury. By RAW you would be dead, anything else is still 'technically' leniency.
If value is 1-5 then nothing
A character that dies automatically fails this check

Just what that lingering injury is we leave up to DM fiat. I try to tailor it to how the character went down and what happened to them while they were down. One player was downed by a fireball and failed his check. His lingering injury was heavy burn scars all over his face that gave him disadvantage on all persuasion rolls. Another was left with a festering wound that gave disadvantage to Con saves. I have not severed limbs, yet, but they tend to get up before getting too many failures.

Again, by DM fiat, to a degree, but these injuries are either out of the player's capability to fix, requiring a dedicated healer at a temple or doctor/surgeon. Or the use of something like a Restoration spell, minimum.

A nice little side benefit is that the DM does not feel as bad for RPing the enemy correctly and attacking or hitting a downed character as it is not so much of a death sentence.

You could always create or find a chart of lingering injuries to use as well.

This does make death more unlikely, but going down at all is more dangerous.

[Sir cryosin]

Hey Playground,

Would you play in a game with the following Houserules meant to create a grittier experience...

1) Standard Array for character creation.

2) ASIs can only be spent on Feats. Thus, only "half feats" will increase stats. Because of this, every race will provide a +2 to one "off stat" (Cha, Int or Str) and 2 +1 to any other stats rather than their book standard. Also, because of this houserule, Resilience can be taken a max of twice rather than once.

3) The following spellcasters may use Spell Points rather than Spell Slots: Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock.

Specifically #2 - as it's the most confining. The idea is that I'd have lower DCs for most things (allowing for more 'luck' than skill for challenges, but also a lot more "yes" when asked if a player can do something) and a lot more auto success for things that would otherwise need a check.

The classic "I swing from a chandelier and kick the bad guy from behind, knocking him to the ground" scenario that is typically used as an example of what the rules don't expressly allow... These types of things, because the characters aren't going to be powerhouses of stat points, should be more forthcoming (counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I like heroics, not heroes... one shouldn't be as strong as Hercules or a dexterous as the Flash to do daring death-defying feats like Errol Flynn...

Anyway, given this concept and groundwork, are there any other houserules you think would enhance this lower powered but more freeform playstyle?

Spell point I think are just OK I'm starting a campaign. We're spell casters use spell points. But I'm also using the variant rest rules. So casters can no all out but. They will be stuck to cantrips rest of the week. I'm also using the training to lv up rule. When they take a long rest aka a week. During that week they have down time. They can train to level up or any other down time activities. This make players manage there resources better. Get a little more creative when it comes to solving problems instead of just throwing magic at it all the time. It also provides them down time so they can do downtime activities and stuff like that found that a lot of times throughout campaigns DM's don't give their players a lot of downtime or players don't ask for any downtime. It also adds a little bit of realism Phil because you got to go and spend time and money to train to learn your new abilities that you get as you level up. As for the ability score increase that you want to put into effect I'll probably walk away from that table. You said you want to implement that to get rid of The Swinging this when you're actually doing the opposite of what you want. There are many great solutions to counteract the so-called swingyness of 5e. Like adjusting the DC for skilled and non-skilled PCs. Limitting only skilled PCS to skills checks. Just using the rule of cool. Or just say sure you can do that because you're the DM. You want to encourage your players to try different things to try to solve problems in different ways in the what they normally do instead of trying to restrict them in the hopes of them doing different things.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Adding off this, it isnt just Martials that need to feel gritty, but magic users too.

Make cantrip 3 or 4 uses a short or long rest goes a loooong way in making the game feel grittier for many people. Getting rid of healing word also gives meaning to Spare the Dying (StD is a bonus action in my groups games...) and makes the world feel more dangerous.

It really breaks immersion when only Martials are pushed to be gritty and the casters are over there going crazy with all sorts of abilities.

When I think gritty, I think hard mode/no short cuts. Magic is all about having a short cut and making things easier. Having them need to ration spells and arrows put s them on par with the Martials who are rationing arrows and how broken their melee weapons are.
You could do something to make long rests more difficult, yeah (I like "you can only long rest in town/a safe space"), but as with all gaming things, you have to be careful not to restrict anyone too much. If the wizard can only cast one spell a fight and spends the rest of the time plinking away with a crossbow, they're not going to feel very magical or fun.

[ChubbyRain]

You could do something to make long rests more difficult, yeah (I like "you can only long rest in town/a safe space"), but as with all gaming things, you have to be careful not to restrict anyone too much. If the wizard can only cast one spell a fight and spends the rest of the time plinking away with a crossbow, they're not going to feel very magical or fun.

Sure, but if you want gritty, then go gritty across the board or you are punishing some players inatead of having everyone play the same game.

I don't generally play gritty games, they are typically focused more on resource management and if I wanted that I would just go play Sims.

But when we do play something that people call "gritty" we apply rules across the board instead of focusing on the non-magical side of things.