What do you think of these houserules?

[Rickety Stick]

Do they seem reasonable? Would you mind playing in a game who used these houserules? I've written the thoughts and intents behind them under the houserules themselves. :smallsmile:


Death Saving Throws
When your hit points are reduced to 0, you must immediately make a death saving throw. Your number of successes and failures only reset if you get three successes, if you roll a natural 20 on a death saving throw, or when you finish a short or Long Rest.

Summoning
A spell or ability that summons or creates creatures in the middle of combat, has the creatures roll for initiative at the start of the combat's next round, unless it specifies that they act on your turn.

Multiclassing
To benefit from wearing Heavy Armor and Shields, all of a characters classes must have proficiency with them.

The intent for the first one is to make combat more lethal without the long lasting penalties that giving out exhaustion to dying PC's comes with.
The intent for the second one is to remove the weirdness of summoned creatures rolling higher initiative than their summoner, and them needing to wait longer before they can act because of that. And also to incentivise players to summon creatures ahead of combat.
The intent for the third one is to make some multiclass choices a bit more costly, and to make it harder for the less armored classes to pick up a consistently high armor class, and then combine it with the shield spell and other strong defensive spells.

[The Cats]

Do your players want to play in a lethal game?

Second one looks fine.

Just ban martial/magic multiclasses. That's all this is effectively doing.

[carrdrivesyou]

These seem ok except for the third one.

If a player repeatedly abuses loopholes and such to make a super hard to kill character, more power to them really. A good DM should know how to handle that. The player should also understand the tier of play that everyone wants to be on, so that they aren't the proverbial Superman of the group. War Mage from 3.5 only had light armor casting, but magic item affects helped out if they wanted to get heavier armor.

Maybe talk to the DM about it. Maybe impose penalties or Arcane Failure Percentage if it really becomes a problem. Perhaps capping them at Medium armor if they want to cast spells would be more beneficial to the group.

Also consider the fighter's Eldritch Knight prestige. This could seriously hamper a person wanting to play that type of character. I can understand the frustration, but I can also understand what the player is doing.

Just my thoughts.
-Carr

[Lombra]

I don't like the last one. Honestly, you already have to invest enough to get heavy armor even through multiclass (it's hella heavy, you won't be able to dump strength even with the variant encumberance rules) plus, it's not even that much of a benefit. Casters trade spells for that.

[mephnick]

The first two are fine.

The third seems like an unnecessary middle ground when you probably just want to ban multiclassing. The game is fine without it and you don't have to worry about being flooded with Hexblade dips and armoured mages.


EDIT: Though I do agree with Lombra. Multiclassing is also very painful in a lot of ways. I personally find it balanced enough.

[Demonslayer666]

Do they seem reasonable? Would you mind playing in a game who used these houserules? I've written the thoughts and intents behind them under the houserules themselves. :smallsmile:


Death Saving Throws
When your hit points are reduced to 0, you must immediately make a death saving throw. Your number of successes and failures only reset if you get three successes, if you roll a natural 20 on a death saving throw, or when you finish a short or Long Rest.

Summoning
A spell or ability that summons or creates creatures in the middle of combat, has the creatures roll for initiative at the start of the combat's next round, unless it specifies that they act on your turn.

Multiclassing
To benefit from wearing Heavy Armor and Shields, all of a characters classes must have proficiency with them.

The intent for the first one is to make combat more lethal without the long lasting penalties that giving out exhaustion to dying PC's comes with.
The intent for the second one is to remove the weirdness of summoned creatures rolling higher initiative than their summoner, and them needing to wait longer before they can act because of that. And also to incentivise players to summon creatures ahead of combat.
The intent for the third one is to make some multiclass choices a bit more costly, and to make it harder for the less armored classes to pick up a consistently high armor class, and then combine it with the shield spell and other strong defensive spells.

First rule seems fine. Just have to remember the initial save.

Second rule seems fine, except that it adds more bookkeeping for you to track their initiative separately. I like having them always go at the same time.

Third rule has issues. The class doesn't gain the proficiency, the character does. Once you are proficient, you know how to use it. Gaining another class does not make you forget what you learned. If the party is giving you issues with high AC, this is a challenge issue that should not be handled by taking away character options. I would suggest using more magic against them that doesn't rely on AC, or use more opponents.

[Rickety Stick]

An extended reason for the third one is mostly that to me, the people who designed the game never seem to have intended for the wizard etc, to have an easy time picking up heavy armor and shields. Multiclassing as is (which many feel was an afterthought when the developers made the game) allows for that to be done easily without sacrificing much if you multiclass into a cleric. Forbidding all multiclassing or certain classes from multiclassing can prevent some fun roleplaying and character building however, so i don't really want that either.

If i come off as rude or overly defensive i apologize, i really just want to explain my thought process behind the third houserule. You guys are most likely right about it not working that well though, so thank you for the feedback :smallsmile:.

[Lombra]

An extended reason for the third one is mostly that to me, the people who designed the game never seem to have intended for the wizard etc, to have an easy time picking up heavy armor and shields. Multiclassing as is (which many feel was an afterthought when the developers made the game) allows for that to be done easily without sacrificing much if you multiclass into a cleric. Forbidding all multiclassing or certain classes from multiclassing can prevent some fun roleplaying and character building however, so i don't really want that either.

If i come off as rude or overly defensive i apologize, i really just want to explain my thought process behind the third houserule. You guys are most likely right about it not working that well though, so thank you for the feedback :smallsmile:.

There should be a little reasoning behind multiclassing. If I, war wizard, am devout to a war diety and want to become a war cleric of that diety, it should be natural for me to train or to get blessed by priests and what not so that I'll become an effective cleric of the war domain. If it bothers you, tell your players that they have to find mentors and spend downtime learning the new proficiencies, I believe that XGtE has guidelines for that.

[Unoriginal]

An extended reason for the third one is mostly that to me, the people who designed the game never seem to have intended for the wizard etc, to have an easy time picking up heavy armor and shields. Multiclassing as is (which many feel was an afterthought when the developers made the game) allows for that to be done easily without sacrificing much if you multiclass into a cleric.

The way the "Casting in Armor" and "Multiclassing" rules show that the designers *did* intend for it to be possible, and consider the current situation enough of a cost.

You're free to disagree, but it would not be Rules as Intended.

[Foxhound438]

"Ah, what a fine day to be a knight! I love the smell of foes approaching, waiting for slaughter.

Ha! my beautiful armor prevents you from hitting me!

Ah, now that the day is done and my foes are slain, it's time to sit down and practice my guit- AAHH

OH MY GOD WHAT IS THIS HORRIBLE CONTRAPTION ON MY BODY??? I CANT MOVE"

yeah, the third house rule is bad. No offense, it just doesn't make sense to suddenly "forget" how to wear armor.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I'd wonder whether the first one deserves a few more exceptions. For example, what if you're magically healed back to full health? Should your saves reset? Seems like that would more more restorative than a short rest.

[Emay Ecks]

An extended reason for the third one is mostly that to me, the people who designed the game never seem to have intended for the wizard etc, to have an easy time picking up heavy armor and shields. Multiclassing as is (which many feel was an afterthought when the developers made the game) allows for that to be done easily without sacrificing much if you multiclass into a cleric. Forbidding all multiclassing or certain classes from multiclassing can prevent some fun roleplaying and character building however, so i don't really want that either.

If i come off as rude or overly defensive i apologize, i really just want to explain my thought process behind the third houserule. You guys are most likely right about it not working that well though, so thank you for the feedback :smallsmile:.

One thing I have done to prevent that sorta thing is to ban dipping into a class solely for a benefit like heavy armor (looking at you cleric). If someone wants to multiclass in my games, they usually have to have a reason for it, and try to keep it in line with their primary class (2-3 level gap at most). I have a sorcerer who is multiclassing into rogue not for the extra proficiency and the expertise, but because he really just wanted to play a rogue capable of casting invisibility (for the stealing and sneaking, not the combat power) the entire time.

[Unoriginal]

"Ah, what a fine day to be a knight! I love the smell of foes approaching, waiting for slaughter.

Ha! my beautiful armor prevents you from hitting me!

Ah, now that the day is done and my foes are slain, it's time to sit down and practice my guit- AAHH

OH MY GOD WHAT IS THIS HORRIBLE CONTRAPTION ON MY BODY??? I CANT MOVE"

Rule of thumb: if an houserule makes mundane game features look like something out of a Saw movie, it needs reconsideration.

[Cynthaer]

This mostly duplicates what others have said, but I'll throw my opinion in. In particular, I always try to be aware of the extra bookkeeping any houserules might create. This is the most common way that minor tweaks can end up being more annoying than the inconsistency they "fix", so it's important to look out for it.

Death Saving Throws: I don't see any major problems with this, if the goal is increased lethality.

That said, consider if this is even worth houseruling? The overall effect is:

DSTs go faster because you do one immediately.
Gaining HP doesn't reset your DSTs, but resting does.
(Rolling a 20 still stabilizes/resets DSTs immediately.)

I get that the intention is to reduce the whack-a-mole effect of everybody just bouncing between 0HP unconsciousness and 1HP full fighting effectiveness, but ask yourself this: Is this an actual problem your game is having, or is it just a theoretical problem with the system that bugs you?

If it's the latter, I personally wouldn't bother until it actually starts affecting gameplay. But, overall, it's not a bad change, just a potentially unnecessary one.

Summoning: Simple and intuitive. You're not adding any bookkeeping, just enforcing equality by giving everything Magic: the Gathering-style "summoning sickness".

As Demonslayer666 suggested, you might also consider just giving summoned creatures the same initiative as the summoner, to actually reduce bookkeeping and let the player do their actions on one turn instead of two spread-out turns. You could still give them summoning sickness if you want to incentivize pre-battle summoning.

Multiclassing: I'm not convinced this solves a real problem, and if it does, it's not the best way.

First off, you devote a lot of words to worrying about high-AC builds, but is that really a problem? Multiclassing tends to be pretty costly all on its own, outside of some wonky cases like Sorcerer/Paladin that have weird synergies. If your player is willing to sacrifice an entire casting class level to get armor proficiency, and sit on at least one spell slot for Shield all day every day, is that actually unbalanced?

Consider this. There was a thread where someone had a player who dedicated every aspect of their character's build to getting the highest possible AC. The net result was a Wizard who was basically untouchable by anything with an attack roll...and who was drastically suboptimal at everything else.

The player wasn't exploiting any loopholes, just allocating their resources into something they really wanted. The DM had NPCs fire volleys of arrows at the Wizard, the player got to watch them bounce off harmlessly, the rest of the party dealt damage, and everybody had a good time.

Second, if you don't like multiclassing, or even just don't like some parts of multiclassing, it's perfectly fine to ban multiclassing. More experienced players and optimizers might strongly prefer multiclassing, but you don't need to provide a justification.

In fact, you'll probably cause more frustration if you give a mechanical/balance justification that isn't convincing, because then your players will think you're a bad DM who doesn't understand multiclassing. If you just say, "as the DM, I want to just run a straightforward single-class game", there's not much for people to argue with. If they want to play a gish, there are any number of single-class options that work perfectly well.

TL;DR: Rule 1 is fine, not sure it's necessary. Rule 2 is good. Rule 3 is bad, either ban multiclassing or leave it alone.

[Sigreid]

I think the armor thing has been beat enough.

For the death save thing you could steal from the SWG MMO, slightly modified to get the effect with lower book keeping. How about after the first drop to 0, each previous drop to 0 between long rests counts as an automatic death save failure. So, first time is normal. Second time you start with 1 failed save. Third time you start with 2 failed saves. Third time you die. The counter does not reset if your raised, only after a long rest. I think that would discourage wack a mole.

[coyote_sly]

The problem I have with 'discouraging whack-a-mole' as a goal of the homerule for deaths saves is that death saves aren't the only part of the system creating that effect - if you get to a point where you MIGHT die, there likely is no healing available that will make you safe again without eating like a full round of turns. In combat healing is absolute ass, and if you don't address that whack-a-mole is inevitable once a character gets down towards death saves anyway because there just isn't another realistic alternative unless the whole party wants to cut and run.

[Rickety Stick]

I think the armor thing has been beat enough.

For the death save thing you could steal from the SWG MMO, slightly modified to get the effect with lower book keeping. How about after the first drop to 0, each previous drop to 0 between long rests counts as an automatic death save failure. So, first time is normal. Second time you start with 1 failed save. Third time you start with 2 failed saves. Third time you die. The counter does not reset if your raised, only after a long rest. I think that would discourage wack a mole.

Hmmm i do really like the sound of that actually. How does this sound as a slightly less punishing version of it?
'If a character falls to 0 hp three times between long rests, they automatically die if they fall to 0 hp again before finishing a long rest.'

[Sigreid]

Sounds ok to me if it gives you what you're looking for.

[Cynthaer]

The problem I have with 'discouraging whack-a-mole' as a goal of the homerule for deaths saves is that death saves aren't the only part of the system creating that effect - if you get to a point where you MIGHT die, there likely is no healing available that will make you safe again without eating like a full round of turns. In combat healing is absolute ass, and if you don't address that whack-a-mole is inevitable once a character gets down towards death saves anyway because there just isn't another realistic alternative unless the whole party wants to cut and run.
I'm inclined to agree.

It's almost a cliche to say, but D&D is not a simulationist game. Everything works smoothest when you focus less on questions like this:

Does it make sense for someone who was unconscious and dying six seconds ago to be sprinting around the battlefield with a battleaxe?
Shouldn't being knocked unconscious for the third time in 48 seconds cause some sort of problem?

And more on questions like this:

Does the overall flow of battle feel right?
Is the party motivated and able to make the right tactical decisions? Are winnable fights are still winnable when someone hits 0HP? Can the party retreat from fights they're losing? Does one death cascade into a TPK? Are players rewarded or punished for moving forward without hyper-optimizing for survivability?
Do the edge cases come up often enough to be noticeable? Are they bad enough to be disruptive?

Obviously the answers to these questions will vary a little from person to person, and I'm not necessarily arguing that 5e RAW nails it perfectly. But considering the overall design philosophy will help you make good houserules that fit the surrounding game systems.

IMO, tweaking the DST resets is a solution in search of a problem, because it doesn't really affect the flow of battle or the party's tactics (outside of spending more time healing). And I don't think the few edge cases it solves are common or bad enough to be worth it.

If you want a medium-term thing that makes players feel like going down to 0HP is really kicking their butts, the Exhaustion rules are a much more elegant approach.

[Sigreid]

I don't disagree, but if someone comes here with what they perceive as a problem for their table, unless I see a huge problem I'd rather help them find something that works for them than try to change their mind.

[Contrast]

Multiclassing
To benefit from wearing Heavy Armor and Shields, all of a characters classes must have proficiency with them.

Also, this may just be a phrasing thing but just for clarity - anyone with any armour proficiency can slap on plate mail and a shield and get the full benefit of it. They'll just have disadvantage on ability checks, saving throws, attack rolls with strength or dex and they can't cast spells.

Pretty compelling reason not to but they can get the benefit :smallwink:

[Captain Panda]

I generally find that house rules should be limited to very, very small and specific changes. In that regard, you've done well.

I don't agree with the second house rule, and the third one might as well read: "Just don't multiclass." Your idea on death saves is fine if you want a more deadly game. Your idea on summons strikes me as unnecessarily punishing for subclasses that rely on summons. I guess my question would then be: "Do you allow the summoner to pick what comes out?" The balance of your rule here would depend. If you choose what comes out -and- steal a round from summons, you might as well just be honest and tell your players to pick another class.

[Rickety Stick]

Also, this may just be a phrasing thing but just for clarity - anyone with any armour proficiency can slap on plate mail and a shield and get the full benefit of it. They'll just have disadvantage on ability checks, saving throws, attack rolls with strength or dex and they can't cast spells.

Pretty compelling reason not to but they can get the benefit :smallwink:

Yeah you're right about that, but ill probably end up scrapping that house rule anyway(thanks though:smallsmile:).

[Cynthaer]

I don't disagree, but if someone comes here with what they perceive as a problem for their table, unless I see a huge problem I'd rather help them find something that works for them than try to change their mind.
And that's fair. It's less that I want to convince them that it's not a problem, and more that I want to make sure they know why they feel like it's a problem, so they can find the right solution.

Speaking of which...

'If a character falls to 0 hp three times between long rests, they automatically die if they fall to 0 hp again before finishing a long rest.'
If you're fine with tracking new information across the adventuring day, and you don't like the long-term effects of Exhaustion, how about applying Exhaustion levels and just resetting all of them after a long rest?

Here's the thing. Death is the most boring of all consequences. All it does is stop somebody's story entirely, and it's completely binary. Either you're dead, or you're not.

The "dying" status in battle is designed to create a high-stakes scenario that compels immediate action, then gets resolved. The blunt threat of death works great here, because it changes the tactical plan for the battle, which is interesting. Instead of dealing damage, someone needs to heal for a turn. Instead of hitting these Goblins over here, we need to stop the ones kicking our unconscious Paladin. The threat of death is boring, but the things it makes you do are interesting.

On a longer time scale, though, I don't think death is as useful a tool. In battle, having two failed DSTs compels action. But out of battle? It compels inaction.

Under your proposed system, if you've got two strikes against you, the only reasonable thing to do is stop everything and take a long rest. If you can't do that, you're probably spending every battle in the back of the group looking for full cover and then Hiding and Dodging as much as possible. Doing anything else just isn't worth losing the character entirely.

A single stray crit or even a high damage roll could kill you, depending on your current HP. And if your party's out of real healing, having one strike is barely better than two—you risk going down to 0HP, back up to 1HP, and then immediately taking one more hit.

The reason some people like using Exhaustion levels as a penalty for hitting 0HP is that it provides immediate and increasingly punishing consequences, but doesn't incentivize unfun gameplay. The first two levels (disadvantage on ability checks and halved speed) are really felt by the players, but they don't punish them for participating in combat. And playing around level three (disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws) is way more interesting than dying.

[Rickety Stick]

And that's fair. It's less that I want to convince them that it's not a problem, and more that I want to make sure they know why they feel like it's a problem, so they can find the right solution.

Speaking of which...

If you're fine with tracking new information across the adventuring day, and you don't like the long-term effects of Exhaustion, how about applying Exhaustion levels and just resetting all of them after a long rest?

Here's the thing. Death is the most boring of all consequences. All it does is stop somebody's story entirely, and it's completely binary. Either you're dead, or you're not.

The "dying" status in battle is designed to create a high-stakes scenario that compels immediate action, then gets resolved. The blunt threat of death works great here, because it changes the tactical plan for the battle, which is interesting. Instead of dealing damage, someone needs to heal for a turn. Instead of hitting these Goblins over here, we need to stop the ones kicking our unconscious Paladin. The threat of death is boring, but the things it makes you do are interesting.

On a longer time scale, though, I don't think death is as useful a tool. In battle, having two failed DSTs compels action. But out of battle? It compels inaction.

Under your proposed system, if you've got two strikes against you, the only reasonable thing to do is stop everything and take a long rest. If you can't do that, you're probably spending every battle in the back of the group looking for full cover and then Hiding and Dodging as much as possible. Doing anything else just isn't worth losing the character entirely.

A single stray crit or even a high damage roll could kill you, depending on your current HP. And if your party's out of real healing, having one strike is barely better than two—you risk going down to 0HP, back up to 1HP, and then immediately taking one more hit.

The reason some people like using Exhaustion levels as a penalty for hitting 0HP is that it provides immediate and increasingly punishing consequences, but doesn't incentivize unfun gameplay. The first two levels (disadvantage on ability checks and halved speed) are really felt by the players, but they don't punish them for participating in combat. And playing around level three (disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws) is way more interesting than dying.

Most of the time it would probably take 3 strikes before someone would start playing like that, but yeah i get your point. A problem with using the exhaustion points in that way however, is that it doesn't affect all characters equally. Melee based characters get it the worst, ranged attack based characters are inconvenienced, and AOE/save focused characters get it the easiest.

EDIT: Im probably going to scrap the 3 strikes thing and use the first house rule instead.

[Cynthaer]

A problem with using the exhaustion points in that way however, is that it doesn't affect all characters equally. Melee based characters get it the worst, ranged attack based characters are inconvenienced, and AOE/save focused characters get it the easiest.
Is that actually a problem, though?

Characters already have different ACs, HP totals, save bonuses, etc by design. Survivability varies greatly, as does the likelihood of a given character actually going down to 0HP. Any long-term punishment for going unconscious is going to have an unequal impact.

Even though "death" has the same consequence for everyone, your "four strikes" approach still affects characters differently based on how likely they are to hit 0HP, how much they are usually targeted by enemies, and how much their usual tactics need to change in order to play "safely".

I'd actually like to approach this from a different direction, for a moment. In the OP, you say your goal is to

make combat more lethal without the long lasting penalties that giving out exhaustion to dying PC's comes with
But Exhaustion isn't designed to make things more "lethal". The Exhaustion rules are like the "dying" rules: A way to increase pressure and force action, backed by death only so nobody can ignore it. Nobody's supposed to actually die from it in the average game.

My point here is this: You don't want combat to be more lethal; you want combat to feel more lethal.

Now, obviously making death more likely will make combat "feel more lethal", but IMO not in a fun way. It's a feeling of "oh god, if anything hits me I might die".

An Exhaustion-like mechanic, however, makes combat "feel more lethal" in a very tangible way, even though it doesn't make you much more likely to die until a few levels in.

Think about it this way: Pick a character you've played. Now imagine that halfway through the adventuring day, they go down to 0HP before healing up a bit.

Scenario 1: You brush it off and carry on. The main long-term consequence is that you've used up some of the party's healing resources. Same thing if you go down again. (Normal rules.)

Scenario 2: You brush it off and carry on. You use up healing, but no other long-term consequences unless you go down again. At that point, you have a serious risk of permanent death from any enemy or trap unless the DM consciously avoids targeting you or you play extremely safely. The vast majority of the time, nobody goes down more than once and this plays like Scenario 1. (Four strikes rule.)

Scenario 3: You have Disadvantage on all ability checks for the rest of the day. The effect is felt immediately and pretty constantly between battles (Perception, Stealth, etc). If you go down again, your movement is halved, harshly affecting your positioning in battle. A third time, and you're reduced to finding sources of Advantage or only using non-attack actions in combat. (Exhaustion rule.)

I don't think option 2 is unplayable, but it's a little "0-100". The first death doesn't matter, but after that you could die at any second. (Note: I don't like that at all, but if that's the specific feeling you want, this is a valid approach.)

Personally, I would argue option 3 is better at making people feel like coming close to death is a Big Deal, and is less likely to lead to an accidental character death. Plus, it's punishing enough that any character would want to avoid it—it's not like your Wizard is going to shrug off three levels of Exhaustion just because they don't make many attack rolls.