Check my houserules for issues?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm gearing up to run a new campaign on an icy winter-world, and I'm thinking above using the following houserules. Do they look too onerous? Unfair at any particular point? Liable to cause issues? The game would start at 3rd and probably go no higher than ~10th.

Note: The primary goals here are:
I want combat to be more dangerous and...somewhat less attrition-based, at least.
I want to open character builds up, let players explore options that normally would be mechanically discouraged.
I want characters to be better at skills, particularly the ones they've trained in.

The World (Brief Intro)
The world of Mroz is, in many ways, similar to Europa. Miles and miles of ice form the surface of the world, rising into mountains, plunging into chasms, and everything in between. The monotony is broken only by the lineae, streaks of rock and clay which allow some semblance of life to cling to the surface. Beneath the surface, a warren of dark tunnels twist and crawl through the icy crust, a silent maze leading from the windswept surface to the a dark, turbulent ocean far below. Farther still, the waters come to a sudden end in a wall of iron, smooth and solid and stretching in every direction without the slightest deviation. And beyond that... only the gods know.

Humans are strangers here. They arrived less than two centuries ago, their plane-hopping vessel destroyed by a celestial abomination that still patrols the edges of Mroz's existence. They arrived to find a surface world ruled by Frost Giants and their lesser kin, the Stuhac, and oceans ruled by the beautiful and fey Rusalka. Only around the edges did they find space, among the nomadic bear-like Vucari, the savage dog-headed Psoglav, and the creeping, tunnel-dwelling Baginnek. Their very existence yet hangs in the balance, for without allies, the giants will annihilate even the memory of humanity on Mroz.

Races may be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491792-A-whole-mess-of-custom-races&p=20903829).

General Stuff, for Feel

Resting: Mroz is cold and unforgiving. Short Rests are impossible without some sort of shelter from the elements--at least an overhang and a small fire, say. Long Rests are only possible in a town, or some similar source of shelter
Damage and Healing: You recover all your hit points during a Short Rest. However, if you drop to zero HP or suffer a critical hit, you lose a hit die. If you have no hit dice to lose, you take a level of exhaustion instead. Level 3 Exhaustion also grants opponents Advantage on saves against your spells or abilities.
Equipment: Iron is hard to come by on Mroz-- most weapons and armor are made out of wood, bone, hide, stone, and ceramics. This does not affect their stats, or their availability-- instead, metal weapons and armor grant +1 attack and damage and bypass resistances as if they were magic.
Cold: Mroz is cold. Real cold. Characters without Resistance to cold, or a racial ability like the Vucari’s, take the following penalties:

Away from a lineae, no cold weather gear: 1 level of exhaustion and 1d6 cold/level of exhaustion per hour
Away from a lineae, cold weather gear: 1 level of exhaustion and 1d6 cold/level of exhaustion per day; resting for 8 hours in near a fire will remove one level, as if you’d taken a Long Rest.
In a lineae, no cold weather gear: As above
In a lineae, cold weather gear: Your feel real cold.

Character Stuff

Ability Scores: Races don’t boost your abilities at all. Instead, pick one ability of your choice to get a +2 bonus, and another to get a +1. (Note: I use a non-standard Human race that gets actual specials)
Multiclassing: Ignore ability requirements for multiclassing.
Skills: Add double your Proficiency bonus to all skill and tool rolls you are Proficient in. If a class feature would normally let you double your bonus, such as the Rogue’s Expertise, it instead allows you to reroll said checks twice per Shot/Long rest, after seeing the result. If it would normally add half your bonus, such as the Bard's Jack of All Trades, it instead adds your full Proficiency. (Note: I give skills to monsters as a matter of course, so PCs don't get an unfair advantage that way. As for PvE things... I've played with RAW skills and with Expertise-for-all skills, and I've debated skill checks in 5e until I'm blue in the face; I'm keeping double Proficiency.)
Feats: You get one free feat at 1st level.

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter offer +1 to a Str/Dex (respectively) instead of the -5/+10 power attack bit

Class Options
All published class/subclass and feats are allowed; UA stuff and homebrew on a case-by-case basis.
The half-casters (Ranger and Paladin) get two cantrips at 1st level off the Druid/Cleric list (respectively), and another at 4th.
Bards get to use their Charisma modifier when making Insight checks against humanoids, beginning at 3rd level.
Rangers prepare spells, and the old Hunter/Beastmaster will get bonus spells like the newer subclasses; bonus spells are always prepared, like Cleric domains. Beastmasters get Animal Friendship at 3rd, Beast Sense at 5th, Conjure Animals at 9th, Dominate Beast at 13th, and Awaken at 17th; Hunters get Hunter’s Mark at 1st, Pass Without Trace at 5th, Speak With Plants at 9th, Locate Creature at 13th, and Hold Monster at 17th.
Rogues get Jack of All Trades (as the Bard) at 1st.
Warlocks who pick Pact of the Blade get medium armor and shield proficiency. The Hexblade doesn’t get Hex Warrior, and uses a revised spell list (thus making it less of a must-pick-to-gish subclass, and more of a thematic curse-user): 1st: Bane and Dissonant Whispers; 2nd: Blindness/Deafness and Phantasmal Force; 3rd: Bestow Curse and Slow; 4th: Confusion and Phantasmal Killer; 5th: Cone of Cold and Contagion.

Combat Stuff

Critical Hits: Roll damage once and double it, rather than rolling all dice twice.
Power Attack: Anyone making a weapon attack can forgo their Proficiency bonus to attack to add twice said bonus to damage.

[Unoriginal]

Well, it seems to me you're prompting nearly everyone to take a level in Barbarian ASAP, with those rules.

That being said, the only thing I would consider too harsh is the "get hit by a crit = lose one HD". With the rules for Short Rests you've selected, it'd make characters way too fragile when the whole day is taken into account, especially with the "no HD to lose = exhaustion".

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, it seems to me you're prompting nearly everyone to take a level in Barbarian ASAP, with those rules.

That being said, the only thing I would consider too harsh is the "get hit by a crit = lose one HD". With the rules for Short Rests you've selected, it'd make characters way too fragile, especially with the "no HD to lose = exhaustion".
For the barbarians: how so?

For the fragility: I want combat to be a little more lethal, so part of that's intentional. That said, I think the free Short Rest healing should at least partially counterbalance the HD drain? You might lose one or two in a close fight, but normally you'd wind up spending one or two after said fight anyway, to heal...

[Mith]

For the barbarians: how so?

For the fragility: I want combat to be a little more lethal, so part of that's intentional. That said, I think the free Short Rest healing should at least partially counterbalance the HD drain? You might lose one or two in a close fight, but normally you'd wind up spending one or two after said fight anyway, to heal...

What is the use of HD if you regain all hit points on a Short Rest? Long Rests won't restore HP?

[Crgaston]

Looks good, except the Skills section is a bit awkwardly written. Do you mean everyone gets double proficiency in ALL tools and skills (as it reads now) or just the ones they have selected for proficiency (which you probably intended)?

Also, I feel like this is a pretty harsh nerf to rogues, turning expertise from at will to twice a day. But I don’t know how skill checks play in your game, so maybe not.

Other than that, I like it. As a player I’d be quite content with everything else.

[Crgaston]

What is the use of HD if you regain all hit points on a Short Rest? Long Rests won't restore HP?
Looks like they represent the number of times you can drop to zero or take a crit before gaining a level of exhaustion.

[Quoz]

What level will this be starting at and how long do you expect it to go? Some of these conditions could make low level squishes drop quicker than expected. Just keep an eye on it and be prepared to adjust if problems become obvious.

A few thoughts:
Your character changes will make some races way more viable than others. Being able to cherry pick abilities is not necessarily bad, but makes secondary abilities far more pronounced.

The automatic expertise will throw off a lot of game balance. Grapplers and stealth characters get a big boost, for example.

Might want to look at how 'cold weather gear' and armor, particularly metal heavy armor, interact. Plate armor leads to frozen nipples.

The better crits will drop players at low levels. Of course, that could have happened anyway.

[Unoriginal]

For the barbarians: how so?

Nevermind, I misremembered something about the class's damage resistances.




For the fragility: I want combat to be a little more lethal, so part of that's intentional. That said, I think the free Short Rest healing should at least partially counterbalance the HD drain? You might lose one or two in a close fight, but normally you'd wind up spending one or two after said fight anyway, to heal...

Well, the thing is, Short Rests are going to be pretty hard to do with the conditions you've given, so the PCs are going to face much more crits on average between short rests.

Also, something I had missed in your OP.



Skills: Add double your Proficiency bonus to all skill and tool rolls. If a class feature would normally let you double your bonus, such as the Rogue’s Expertise, it instead allows you to reroll said checks twice per Shot/Long rest, after seeing the result.


I strongly recommend to NOT do that. Seriously.

It's just punishing anyone who takes Rogues or Bard by giving everyone their class capacity, and replacing their capacity by a weaker, less satisfying alternative.

Also it would make most ability checks where skill proficiencies are involved irrelevant for most people.

[Emay Ecks]

I think the cold and rest rules are fine as long as you don't intentionally abuse them at the player's expense. You're actually being very reasonable by offering the bonus healing on short rests. However, if you do things like "Oh yeah, this quest is a week away, and you have to walk it." or "The dragon burns all your winter clothes and flies off, town is 5 hours away" I know many players who would get very tired of the rules, very quickly. But from what I've seen you post before, I think you're an overall good dm, and I don't think you'd be malicious to your players, so the rules are probably fine as they are.

I'm curious how you are doing stat generation. It seems you are going for a higher powered game (double proficiency, free feat) and that seems fine as long as you don't inflate DCs and difficulty to match. Otherwise, why bother with the home rules? Are you starting at level 1? I think these rules lend themselves much better to a game that starts at least at level 3. With the bonus crit damage, it's possible for an enemy to instantly kill (not just knock unconscious) a character at low levels. I'm personally not a fan of that rule, but it's a matter of personal taste and I don't see a mechanical issue with it besides at very low levels. The cold damage on travel also is very bad for a level 1 party (wizard takes 6 damage getting to first quest, good luck fighting a goblin when it can sneeze to knock him to 0).

I'm also curious as to who your players are going to be. These rules seem geared towards experienced players who might make interesting build choices (no multiclass requirements, no racial stats, no hex warrior) and by extension seem less friendly to a newer player. I know that may sound counter-intuitive, but providing limits helps steer new players in better directions (though going too far can ruin a game). However, if you're playing with a group of regulars who you know make interesting builds, these rules seem fine.

I think the change to sharpshooter and great weapon master are entirely reasonable.

I really like the Class Option house rules, and I have implemented similar ones in my own games.

As I mentioned above, not a big fan of the crit change, but it's not a bad change. I like the idea of the power-attack. I think it thematically works, but I might reduce the bonus damage to proficiency, instead of double it. As it is, it seems more advantageous to power attack (especially at low levels) than it is to regular attack unless you have extra on hit effects (smites and sneak attacks) riding on just landing a hit. I haven't actually done the math on it, but that's just at a glance.

Overall, I think they're good rules for a winter setting. Best of luck on your game!

[Grod_The_Giant]

What is the use of HD if you regain all hit points on a Short Rest? Long Rests won't restore HP?

Looks like they represent the number of times you can drop to zero or take a crit before gaining a level of exhaustion.
This, basically. They're a more literal form of meat than hit points.


Looks good, except the Skills section is a bit awkwardly written. Do you mean everyone gets double proficiency in ALL tools and skills (as it reads now) or just the ones they have selected for proficiency (which you probably intended)?

Also, I feel like this is a pretty harsh nerf to rogues, turning expertise from at will to twice a day. But I don’t know how skill checks play in your game, so maybe not.

Other than that, I like it. As a player I’d be quite content with everything else.
I'll fix the wording. I feel like rerolls are still


What level will this be starting at and how long do you expect it to go? Some of these conditions could make low level squishes drop quicker than expected. Just keep an eye on it and be prepared to adjust if problems become obvious.

A few thoughts:
Your character changes will make some races way more viable than others. Being able to cherry pick abilities is not necessarily bad, but makes secondary abilities far more pronounced.

The automatic expertise will throw off a lot of game balance. Grapplers and stealth characters get a big boost, for example.

Might want to look at how 'cold weather gear' and armor, particularly metal heavy armor, interact. Plate armor leads to frozen nipples.

The better crits will drop players at low levels. Of course, that could have happened anyway.
Starting probably around 3, going up to mid-levels, potentially.

As it should be? Mostly, I'm hoping to open up new possibilities, and allow unusual race choices without weakening yourself too much.

I give monsters and NPCs skills too, because it's absolutely insane that they don't have any, so there shouldn't be any undue advantage there.

Fair point-- you should be able to have both simultaneously. (One fluffy bit of the setting is that metal is very rare; normal gear is made of wood, bone, hide, stone, and/or ceramics; iron or steel equipment counts as a +1 magic item)

EDIT:

Well, the thing is, Short Rests are going to be pretty hard to do with the conditions you've given, so the PCs are going to face much more crits on average between short rests.
I'll allow things like "a cave mouth" or "a sheltered overhang" for Short Rests-- I don't intend to be mean about that. You just need to get out of the wind.


Also, something I had missed in your OP.

I strongly recommend to NOT do that. Seriously.

It's just punishing anyone who takes Rogues or Bard by giving everyone their class capacity, and replacing their capacity by a weaker, less satisfying alternative.

Also it would make most ability checks where skill proficiencies are involved irrelevant for most people.
I can throw in alternate class features instead, if you don't think 2 rerolls/short rest is good enough (that's quite good value in my mind, but ymmv), but... strongly disagree. This part I have tested, and I very much like. I like the margins of success with Expertise a lot more than without. It makes everyone feel more competent and heroic, which I think is only a good thing; it makes ability scores less vital to competence, which I also find valuable; and it reduces the randomness of ability checks somewhat, which I also really like. I like there to be a difference between trained and untrained guys.


I think the cold and rest rules are fine as long as you don't intentionally abuse them at the player's expense. You're actually being very reasonable by offering the bonus healing on short rests. However, if you do things like "Oh yeah, this quest is a week away, and you have to walk it." or "The dragon burns all your winter clothes and flies off, town is 5 hours away" I know many players who would get very tired of the rules, very quickly. But from what I've seen you post before, I think you're an overall good dm, and I don't think you'd be malicious to your players, so the rules are probably fine as they are.
I don't intend to be mean, no. I'm not stripping gear unless I mean that to be a major part of that particular challenge.


I'm curious how you are doing stat generation. It seems you are going for a higher powered game (double proficiency, free feat) and that seems fine as long as you don't inflate DCs and difficulty to match. Otherwise, why bother with the home rules? Are you starting at level 1? I think these rules lend themselves much better to a game that starts at least at level 3. With the bonus crit damage, it's possible for an enemy to instantly kill (not just knock unconscious) a character at low levels. I'm personally not a fan of that rule, but it's a matter of personal taste and I don't see a mechanical issue with it besides at very low levels. The cold damage on travel also is very bad for a level 1 party (wizard takes 6 damage getting to first quest, good luck fighting a goblin when it can sneeze to knock him to 0).
Starting at 3, for sure-- I don't like lv 1/2 starts for a bunch of reasons. Stats will probably be standard point-buy;.


I'm also curious as to who your players are going to be. These rules seem geared towards experienced players who might make interesting build choices (no multiclass requirements, no racial stats, no hex warrior) and by extension seem less friendly to a newer player. I know that may sound counter-intuitive, but providing limits helps steer new players in better directions (though going too far can ruin a game). However, if you're playing with a group of regulars who you know make interesting builds, these rules seem fine.
Hmm. Hadn't really thought about that, but I think it'll be good. Most of my players will be coming from an old 3.5 group, so 5e is already a lot simpler, and I'll be around to help during session 0. Besides, in some ways I think it's easier not to have to worry about matching ability modifiers to classes-- it's getting a thing out of the way.


Overall, I think they're good rules for a winter setting. Best of luck on your game!
Thanks!

[Provo]

Sounds like a fun setting.

I agree that I t seems like you are unintentionally nerfing rogue with the expertise.

It has been awhile since I played 3.5. Are you saying that the weapon damage is doubled, but added damage (such as Smite/sneak attack) doesn't get doubled? That would be another painful hit to rogues.

The heal to full on short rest feels strange. It goes against the unforgiving setting, and makes people unconcerned about dropping to 0 health. Maybe just make all hit dice heal for the maximum amount. Then healing is still easy on short rest, but people will be afraid to lose their hit dice.

Perhaps the guidance cantrip should be changed to a d6.

You are giving short rest characters a very strong buff with restricting long rests AND giving a full heal on short ones. I like to buff short rest characters, but this may be too much.

[Davrix]

Some of these rules seem ok but it really seems like your empowering some things just to nerf things you don't like.

For example the nerf to rogues, your nerf to hexblade and also the two feats because you don't want the extra damage.

This is just my opinion but as a player if I saw that I would not be happy to have the raw re-written for such cherry picked things. And while I would simply try to discuss these ideas with you, other players would simply go. The Dm didn't like those things because they are to good so I cant have those toys. Which leads to the mindset of ok what else can I pick that will make the DM cry. And trust me there are plenty of other nasty combos to choose from that you didn't touch with these changes.

Home-brew rules work best when your adding something to the game be it a bonus or a challenge to everyone at once or your altering a power based on RP or world building reasons to fit a theme. These however are simply balance changes your trying to make to nerf certain builds.

[The_Jette]

I have a question: for class abilities that allow half-proficiency on things a character normally would not get their proficiency bonus on, would they double that for normal proficiency? Or, would it stay at half?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sounds like a fun setting.

I agree that I t seems like you are unintentionally nerfing rogue with the expertise.

It has been awhile since I played 3.5. Are you saying that the weapon damage is doubled, but added damage (such as Smite/sneak attack) doesn't get doubled? That would be another painful hit to rogues.

The heal to full on short rest feels strange. It goes against the unforgiving setting, and makes people unconcerned about dropping to 0 health. Maybe just make all hit dice heal for the maximum amount. Then healing is still easy on short rest, but people will be afraid to lose their hit dice.
Mmm, you're right-- I didn't think about sneak-attack crits. That's kind of harsh... I just don't like crits where you roll and deal, like, two extra damage. Coming from double-or-triple-everything hits in prior editions, 5e ones can feel underwhelming.


Some of these rules seem ok but it really seems like your empowering some things just to nerf things you don't like.

For example the nerf to rogues, your nerf to hexblade and also the two feats because you don't want the extra damage.
For classes with Expertise, I want to have an equivalent replacement, though it sounds like the consensus is that the rerolls aren't enough? Hexblade is arguably the most overpowered subclass yet published, and is certainly irritating that it's such a vital patch for Pact of the Blade-- you'll note that I boosted the base Pact in its place. I took away the -5/+10 part of the feats because I'm letting everyone Power Attack. So... not sure where you're getting "just trying to nerf everything."


I have a question: for class abilities that allow half-proficiency on things a character normally would not get their proficiency bonus on, would they double that for normal proficiency? Or, would it stay at half?
Ooh, good question. I'm inclined to say "full?" +2-4 is a small but noticeable bonus on a d20; +1-+2 really is not.

EDIT/UPDATE: I've tossed some added bonuses to Bards and Rogues in exchange for weakening their Expertise, and restored bonus damage dice to the crit rules. I think Rogue players shouldn't have much to complain about now?

[Tanarii]

Skills: Add double your Proficiency bonus to all skill and tool rolls you are Proficient in. If a class feature would normally let you double your bonus, such as the Rogue’s Expertise, it instead allows you to reroll said checks twice per Shot/Long rest, after seeing the result. If it would normally add half your bonus, such as the Bard's Jack of All Trades, it instead adds your full Proficiency.
Feats: You get one free feat at 1st level.

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter offer +1 to a Str/Dex (respectively) instead of the -5/+10 power attack bit
On skills: after having been in many online discussions you've had on this, it feels like you found a good way to handle Expertise. Also, you might want to include a note for the players on how you will be scaling DCs.
On feats: That's a huge power boost at low levels. Are you going to compensate by boosting difficulty of encounters? Which I'll note will level them faster, could be good or bad depending on if you want that. Or is it compensated by loss of racial features?
On GWM & Sharpshooter: Nice!


Class Options
All published class/subclass and feats are allowed; UA stuff and homebrew on a case-by-case basis.
The third-caster subclasses (Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight) have no school restriction on what spells they can learn
The half-casters (Ranger and Paladin) get two cantrips at 1st level off the Druid/Cleric list, and another at 4th.
Rogues get Jack of All Trades (as the Bard) at 1st.
IMO That's a major power boost to AKs/ATs, which don't really need one.
Be prepared for Shillelagh Rangers & Paladins. Especially Rangers.
Do rogues really need that? They're already super-skill guys. Or do you feel its needed to balance the Bard?


Combat Stuff
Power Attack: Anyone making a weapon attack can forgo their Proficiency bonus to attack to add twice said bonus to damage.
Boo! I was all excited to see you get rid of that from GWM / Sharpshooter. :smallamused:
You're aware that this is differently powered at lower proficiency bonuses compared to higher, right? (I can't recall if it's better at -2/+4 or -6/+12, but I think it favors -2/+4.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

On skills: after having been in many online discussions you've had on this, it feels like you found a good way to handle Expertise. Also, you might want to include a note for the players on how you will be scaling DCs.
On feats: That's a huge power boost at low levels. Are you going to compensate by boosting difficulty of encounters? Which I'll note will level them faster, could be good or bad depending on if you want that. Or is it compensated by loss of racial features?
On GWM & Sharpshooter: Nice!
Mostly, I just like letting characters define themselves a little bit more at first level. I make encounters a bit more difficult and things work out fine; I can live with slightly faster leveling.


IMO That's a major power boost to AKs/ATs, which don't really need one.
Be prepared for Shillelagh Rangers & Paladins. Especially Rangers.
Do rogues really need that? They're already super-skill guys. Or do you feel its needed to balance the Bard?
My thinking is that it's mostly just adding utility; offensive spells will be well behind par for either subclass, but... yeah, I see your point.

Whoops, missed a "respectively"-- Paladins don't get Druid cantrips. I can live with Shillelagh Rangers; it lets them spellcast a bit more if they want to do it, and they still need Dex for AC and stealth (if they care).


Boo! I was all excited to see you get rid of that from GWM / Sharpshooter. :smallamused:
You're aware that this is differently powered at lower proficiency bonuses compared to higher, right? (I can't recall if it's better at -2/+4 or -6/+12, but I think it favors -2/+4.)
I wasn't, particularly-- do you have the math on hand?

[lunaticfringe]

Everything seems ok to me, you seem to want a Player vs Environment & Combat is Brutal style game while using a big Table Of 3.X Skill DCs. As long as everyone is on board go for it.

If I didn't know you (which I don't) I would probably pass on this game. Nothing against your changes specifically I'm just not a fan of major reworks if it's my first time at your table.

[Davrix]

For classes with Expertise, I want to have an equivalent replacement, though it sounds like the consensus is that the rerolls aren't enough? Hexblade is arguably the most overpowered subclass yet published, and is certainly irritating that it's such a vital patch for Pact of the Blade-- you'll note that I boosted the base Pact in its place. I took away the -5/+10 part of the feats because I'm letting everyone Power Attack. So... not sure where you're getting "just trying to nerf everything."

I never said you nerfed everything, I said you nerfed things you didn't like.

Also hexblade is not THAT broken, it is good I wont deny that but people seem to forget the moment you take that lv 1 dip into the class you are giving up a +2 or feat reward tier. Sure its a quick power gain but if your game goes for a few levels, your power progression is slowed by this choice. It offers some decent bonuses but really when you look at it, the curse is good for only one target, it does let you get char for your weapon and dmg attack and you get some decent lv 1 spells. All great toolkit items but none of them are game breaking.

You basically have crippled great weapon master with your power attack a +1 str is not a good trade off for killing off its major feature, sharpshooter at least has better abilities to work off of so its not as crippled but it just feels more like you want 3.5 combat rules than 5th ed rules.

I'd never play a rogue in this setting with these rules, you basically cut the legs out from them as people have said.

I will re-state, home-brew works best when your not trying to change the rules for re-balancing the game and instead making rules to fit the setting. The rules about how short rest and long rest work because of your environment I love. maybe a little tweak with the HD from the critical like folks have said but i love the concept of a harsh climate world.

Homebrew also works best when your either taking away or giving something to all choices. Your rules for races and the bonus feat at lv 1 are great but I would suggest what I do in my games for people. In that humans stay as they are with the +1+1 to any stat and a feat. All other races may choose to take a +1 +1 to the racial stats listed in the players handbook and one feat of their choice. This way race identity still stays the same and the power distribution stays very similar and humans get to keep a bit of that versatility they are known for.

[MrStabby]

Some bits I love, some bits I hate, some bits leave me a little puzzled.

I love the long rests. Needing a town rewards social, exploration and building ties to the setting. Survival is now about so much more than combat.

The bad? Skills. If it were not for these changes I would be pretty excited to play in a campaign like this. Raising the impact of proficiency feels too much like the bad old days of 3rd edition where you were either great at something or it wasn't worth bothering. Under current rules if it is reasonable for one party member it is at least possible for most - there is a gulf in ability but the role of the dice keeps it exciting and keeps non dedicated characters relevant.

And the puzzling? It seems like you want to discourage martial characters, or at least spell free ones. No metal armour? More exhaustion (they won't have spells that need a save)? Denying arguably the best feats for them (or seriously changing them anyway).

Of course if as per PHB a breaking wave can force a concentration check, I imagine massive shivering could as well - so there may be aspects of balance not covered here.

[Jama7301]

And the puzzling? It seems like you want to discourage martial characters, or at least spell free ones. No metal armour? More exhaustion (they won't have spells that need a save)? Denying arguably the best feats for them (or seriously changing them anyway).


I ended up reading the armor bit as something similar to Dark Sun, where the Bone Armor has the same stats as, say, Plate, but if you get the metal version of it, it's got an innate +1 due to being a superior material.

I'd probably play a game with these rules. Seems like it would provide an interesting twist.

[Tanarii]

My thinking is that it's mostly just adding utility; offensive spells will be well behind par for either subclass, but... yeah, I see your point.Well behind what par?

EKs benefit from offensive blasty spells, getting ranged & AoE damage they don't normally have access to.

ATs gain control spells.

Both gain enhanced combat options compared to their baseline class, which puts them ahead of par for offensive spells.


Whoops, missed a "respectively"-- Paladins don't get Druid cantrips. I can live with Shillelagh Rangers; it lets them spellcast a bit more if they want to do it, and they still need Dex for AC and stealth (if they care).Yeah. it's a minor thing. My first instinct was to say that Rangers and Paladins aren't supposed to be the level of magical that makes them all-day-long casters, unlike EKs or ATs. But that's just a comment on the PHB archetype. If you want them to be all-day-long levels of magical, then this is the way to do it.


I wasn't, particularly-- do you have the math on hand?No, sorry. I just seen Kryx comment on it several times.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I never said you nerfed everything, I said you nerfed things you didn't like.

Also hexblade is not THAT broken, it is good I wont deny that but people seem to forget the moment you take that lv 1 dip into the class you are giving up a +2 or feat reward tier. Sure its a quick power gain but if your game goes for a few levels, your power progression is slowed by this choice. It offers some decent bonuses but really when you look at it, the curse is good for only one target, it does let you get char for your weapon and dmg attack and you get some decent lv 1 spells. All great toolkit items but none of them are game breaking.

You basically have crippled great weapon master with your power attack a +1 str is not a good trade off for killing off its major feature, sharpshooter at least has better abilities to work off of so its not as crippled but it just feels more like you want 3.5 combat rules than 5th ed rules.

I'd never play a rogue in this setting with these rules, you basically cut the legs out from them as people have said.
I actually didn't mind that Hexblade was good for dips; I just didn't like that it was the *one* dedicated gish-Pact for Warlocks, and that it offered capability significantly in excess of what other full-caster-gish-subclasses allowed.

GWM and Sharpshooter are a lot less good now, true, but they had a kind of outsized potential before. Again, everyone

I've taken the rogue criticisms into account; in addition to the rerolls, I threw in Jack of All Trades and allowed their Sneak Attack dice to crit again. They're still tied with Bard for "best skillmonkey"-- all they've lost is their skill numbers being higher than everyone else's.


Some bits I love, some bits I hate, some bits leave me a little puzzled.

I love the long rests. Needing a town rewards social, exploration and building ties to the setting. Survival is now about so much more than combat.

The bad? Skills. If it were not for these changes I would be pretty excited to play in a campaign like this. Raising the impact of proficiency feels too much like the bad old days of 3rd edition where you were either great at something or it wasn't worth bothering. Under current rules if it is reasonable for one party member it is at least possible for most - there is a gulf in ability but the role of the dice keeps it exciting and keeps non dedicated characters relevant.

And the puzzling? It seems like you want to discourage martial characters, or at least spell free ones. No metal armour? More exhaustion (they won't have spells that need a save)? Denying arguably the best feats for them (or seriously changing them anyway).

Of course if as per PHB a breaking wave can force a concentration check, I imagine massive shivering could as well - so there may be aspects of balance not covered here.
I'm not changing my mind on the skill boost. I've played with and without it, had great feedback from players in a past campaign that used it, and I've argued about it online until I'm blue in the face. I like how it works, as do most people I've played with.

I don't want to discourage martial characters at all. As Jama noted, and as I've now clarified in the rules, the armor thing is just thematic; you can have a suit of ridged-bone-and-hide heavy armor that gives you a base AC of 18 for 1500 gold, just like Plate; getting a metal version is extra. I've weakened the outsized GWM/SS power attack, but opened up a power attack option to any weapon-user. (Would it be worth keeping those feats as special, outsized options?) And... fair point about Exhaustion being worse for martial types; I'll put a note in making it suck for casters as well.



Well behind what par?
Nah, on reflection I think you're right. Striking that part.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm most concerned about two things here: skills and the impact that gritty rests have on class balance.

For skills, expertise makes it easy for a rogue or bard to have an athletics, perception, and stealth score higher than any monster can reliably compete with. At the extremes, an Inquisitive Rogue using perception or a Bard with Pass Without Trace can hit numbers in the high twenties on an average roll. If this applies to everyone and monster perception, athletics, and stealth scores are not similarly raised, it can significantly affect your game's balance. Should your players figure that out, building a stealth team with one Observant perception user will be a no-brainer.

For gritty realism, the trouble with making rests more difficult is that classes less reliant on rests are more powerful. A ranged thief rogue, as one example, will have a field day in a campaign where casters and other martials are afraid to use their limited features. That's something to consider.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As I now note in the OP, monsters also get doubled skills, and I DO give them skill proficiencies while I'm at it. So the head-to-head stuff is unchanged; only trained-vs-untrained gets swung, and that's a change I WANT to include. +2 vs +5 (dabble vs prof) is hard to see a different with, but +2 vs +7 (dabbler vs 2*prof) is a whole lot clearer.

And as for the rests, I'm going to keep a close eye on that for sure. Like I mentioned upthread, I'm planning on using about the same number of encounters, just stung out over a longer in-game time scale.

[Tanarii]

Grod, it's worth putting in a note that you've debated the double-proficiency change for skills many times in the past, and are fully aware of the impact on the ability check system. Otherwise you're gonna end up having those debates all over again. :smallbiggrin:

[Davrix]

I actually didn't mind that Hexblade was good for dips; I just didn't like that it was the *one* dedicated gish-Pact for Warlocks, and that it offered capability significantly in excess of what other full-caster-gish-subclasses allowed.

GWM and Sharpshooter are a lot less good now, true, but they had a kind of outsized potential before. Again, everyone

The sharpshooter feat still has use because of the cover bonus and the range bonus. However GWM is useless. +1 to to a stat and you get an extra attack on a crit? that is so nitch use and not worth the price of a +2 stat increase. Sharpshooter at least gives you two bonuses that are constantly active not a 5 percent chance on a attack roll.

Also your so lazer focused on the fact that this one thing in hexblad is so mandatory for any min max character build. You don't like it, your literally pointing your finger at this one thing and saying. I hate this rule so I'm changing it. I know some players are like that but if your world is fun and creative I'm much more likely going to pick a class combo that fits the world and come up with a story around it. And unless you want that very specific feature of sword and shield in a caster using a char mod its not going to work for a lot of other class combos. Or do what I do when I have a player at the table who is picking power choices like this. Ask them to come up with a backstory to what and why they are doing it. Some do and you now have material to work with as a DM to increase the players fun. Some don't and simply go choose something else. But I'm sorry the more I think about it if I saw this when sitting at your table for the first time I would instantly be that guy and find the biggest dumbest power combo I could think of and go to town on everything.

And I might add it feels the same way with GWM and sharpshooter. But at least I understand your reasoning in giving power attack and I'll be the first to admit Sharpshooters new rule is ok with what you want because its super good as it stands by raw and could probably use a notch back but you need to give GWM something more then what it has. Might I suggest taking the fighting style for two handed weapons and letting them re-roll any 1 or 2 on the damage die once if it has the two handed property on top of the +1 stat increase and the extra attack on crit. That way at least the feature has something you can always access like the sharpshooter talent.

I want to stress by the way this is simply my opinion on the matter, its your game and your table and your welcome to do as you wish but you asked for feedback on these rules and while I like some I greatly dislike others because it feels like these rules are more around the DM doesn't like certain toys in his game rather than adding flavor and challenge to the game world. (One of the reasons why I like dark sun so very much and should be a good example to anyone who wants to home-brew how the world works and functions.) Things should feel different, act different in homebrew but what they shouldn't feel like is oh that got changed because the Dm knows its to good or doesn't like it by the RAW.

[Easy_Lee]

As I now note in the OP, monsters also get doubled skills, and I DO give them skill proficiencies while I'm at it. So the head-to-head stuff is unchanged; only trained-vs-untrained gets swung, and that's a change I WANT to include. +2 vs +5 (dabble vs prof) is hard to see a different with, but +2 vs +7 (dabbler vs 2*prof) is a whole lot clearer.

And as for the rests, I'm going to keep a close eye on that for sure. Like I mentioned upthread, I'm planning on using about the same number of encounters, just stung out over a longer in-game time scale.

Got it. That should overall be fine, then. It sounds like the terrain will be a significant obstacle, which is fresh and interesting. I would almost certainly play a beast master ranger with an arctic cat or similar if I joined.

[Potato_Priest]

On great weapon master and sharpshooter:

I think that sharpshooter remains a decent feat, depending on how much your group uses cover. If it’s utilized frequently, then it remains a decent feat, as outranging enemies and ignoring cover is exceedingly useful on open tundra.

Great weapon master is a much worse feat without -5/+10. There are multiple other ways to get more reliable bonus action attacks, and that is all that this feat does now. I’d either let it keep -5/+10 or give it something new.

[Easy_Lee]

On great weapon master and sharpshooter:

I think that sharpshooter remains a decent feat, depending on how much your group uses cover. If it’s utilized frequently, then it remains a decent feat, as outranging enemies and ignoring cover is exceedingly useful on open tundra.

Great weapon master is a much worse feat without -5/+10. There are multiple other ways to get more reliable bonus action attacks, and that is all that this feat does now. I’d either let it keep -5/+10 or give it something new.

He's adding +1 attribute to those feats, which should be a reasonable trade-off. Players can't complain as they can still make power attacks.

[Potato_Priest]

He's adding +1 attribute to those feats, which should be a reasonable trade-off. Players can't complain as they can still make power attacks.

I know, but +1 str and an unreliable bonus action attack still seems somewhat lackluster. Also, I like the new power attack rules quite a lot. They are exactly normal when your proficiency bonus is +5, and scale nicely with levels.

[Davrix]

He's adding +1 attribute to those feats, which should be a reasonable trade-off. Players can't complain as they can still make power attacks.

Its still super super weak now, the extra hit on crit has a 5 percent chance of occurring and you get a +1. There are MUCH better feat choices now to augment your weapon and look at sharpshooter. You get the +1 and you get max range and the cover feature from it on. GWM gets none of that, its only real perk was the +damage it needs something more than just the +1 to stat or no one is going to bother with it, you might as well lump it in with weapon master. AKA useless.

As I said above give it the fighting stance feature of letting you re-roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die once made with a two handed weapon. Great feature and fere's up a choice for other fighting stances. Like I could take sword and board on the paladin with my 2h and take the fighting stance choice for that so i can be a little more tanky some fights or more damage on others it be a fun and interesting choice. As its written now its a bland boring choice with no real benefit. You would get more from a +2 stat choice over GWM

[The_Jette]

I know, but +1 str and an unreliable bonus action attack still seems somewhat lackluster. Also, I like the new power attack rules quite a lot. They are exactly normal when your proficiency bonus is +5, and scale nicely with levels.

Yeah, that feat does seem to suffer a bit. But, it was a pretty strong ability to begin with. On the other hand, the feat "Skilled" just got a ton more useful, since you're effectively getting proficiency AND expertise with 3 new skills. A bard half-elf could start off with double proficiency in 10 skills, and bump that to 13 at level 3 by going Lore. There are only 18 skills total. And, that's just for the cost of three levels and a feat that you start with.

[Easy_Lee]

Its still super super weak now, the extra hit on crit has a 5 percent chance of occurring and you get a +1. There are MUCH better feat choices now to augment your weapon and look at sharpshooter. You get the +1 and you get max range and the cover feature from it on. GWM gets none of that, its only real perk was the +damage it needs something more than just the +1 to stat or no one is going to bother with it, you might as well lump it in with weapon master. AKA useless.

As I said above give it the fighting stance feature of letting you re-roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die once made with a two handed weapon. Great feature and fere's up a choice for other fighting stances. Like I could take sword and board on the paladin with my 2h and take the fighting stance choice for that so i can be a little more tanky some fights or more damage on others it be a fun and interesting choice. As its written now its a bland boring choice with no real benefit. You would get more from a +2 stat choice over GWM

5% is inaccurate. With two attacks and advantage (standard barbarian attack action), the chance is about 19%. A Champion / Hexblade using his curse with Elven Accuracy has a 27% chance to crit with one attack made with advantage. And the bonus attack from GWM already applies when you crit or kill with any melee weapon attack. None of that takes kills into consideration, either.

The point is that, for people who are likely to take this feat, the odds of getting a bonus attack are much higher than 5%.

[Floogal]

I'm not a big fan of your change to Expertise, due to the extra bookkeeping it needs. Higher level Rogues/Bards will have four sets of 2 rerolls per short rest to keep track of. From my experience, there are players who gravitate towards Rogue in particular because there's almost no resource-management involved.

Thus, I propose a new form of Expertise that doesn't have limited resources or breaking of bounded-accuracy:
"If you have Expertise with a skill/tool, then you can treat your ability modifier as +5 when making an ability check where you add that proficiency."

So if you have Expertise in intimidation, when you make an intimidation roll, you're adding 5+proficiency regardless of what your Charisma/Strength/??? is.

One side-effect of this is that it will encourage characters to bolster weaker skills rather than enhancing specialties. i.e. the Bard will more likely choose Expertise in history rather than persuasion. Maybe add a rider that if an ASI causes you to reach 20 in the stat most associated with your Expertise, you can select another. (e.g. A rogue with Expertise in stealth hits 20 Dex, making the Expertise almost always redundant, so they can choose Expertise in perception at the same time).

[Provo]

I don't think GWM will be useless, but if it is then so what? It doesn't matter, it is optional.

For the purpose of Grod's questions, what matters are if any feats are too strong, unexpected balance issues between classes, and rules that don't achieve the desired effect.

[Tanarii]

I know, but +1 str and an unreliable bonus action attack still seems somewhat lackluster.
Nope. It's still above the average or at least par for power from feats.

But PAM still needs a nerf to bring it in line. Eliminating it's bonus action and making it a half feat should do it.

(Edit: I should probably throw in an IMO here. 😂 )

[Eric Diaz]

I haven't read the entire thread, but it would be helpful to the OP to say what are you trying to accomplish with these rules.

My 2c so far:

- If you want more reliable skills you can always use 2d10 or 3d6 (or 4d6 for that matter, or giving advantage to everyone who has proficiency) instead of reworking all PCs and monsters or messing with "short rest" stuff.

- GWM is actually one of the few things that make using a 2h weapon great. Otherwise, there is not much reason to use a greataxe, for example. (although I DO agree that SS is too strong and GWM beats dual wielding, etc - but with your rule it seem PAM is now the best melee style).

EDIT: also:

- Do you want people to multi-class MORE and use odd race/class combinations? Because that seems to be some of the effects you might get.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Grod, it's worth putting in a note that you've debated the double-proficiency change for skills many times in the past, and are fully aware of the impact on the ability check system. Otherwise you're gonna end up having those debates all over again. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, probably. Sigh...


On great weapon master and sharpshooter:

I think that sharpshooter remains a decent feat, depending on how much your group uses cover. If it’s utilized frequently, then it remains a decent feat, as outranging enemies and ignoring cover is exceedingly useful on open tundra.

Great weapon master is a much worse feat without -5/+10. There are multiple other ways to get more reliable bonus action attacks, and that is all that this feat does now. I’d either let it keep -5/+10 or give it something new.
Maybe I'll throw in a note steering people towards Fell Handed (minus the BA-breaking +1 attack) as a substitute? That's a nice flavorful alternative. Or... well, it sounds like a lot of people are bothered by the lack of GWM/SS bonus damage, so maybe it would be worth keeping those around as a sort of enhanced version of the base Power Attack?


I'm not a big fan of your change to Expertise, due to the extra bookkeeping it needs. Higher level Rogues/Bards will have four sets of 2 rerolls per short rest to keep track of. From my experience, there are players who gravitate towards Rogue in particular because there's almost no resource-management involved.

Thus, I propose a new form of Expertise that doesn't have limited resources or breaking of bounded-accuracy:
"If you have Expertise with a skill/tool, then you can treat your ability modifier as +5 when making an ability check where you add that proficiency."

So if you have Expertise in intimidation, when you make an intimidation roll, you're adding 5+proficiency regardless of what your Charisma/Strength/??? is.

One side-effect of this is that it will encourage characters to bolster weaker skills rather than enhancing specialties. i.e. the Bard will more likely choose Expertise in history rather than persuasion. Maybe add a rider that if an ASI causes you to reach 20 in the stat most associated with your Expertise, you can select another. (e.g. A rogue with Expertise in stealth hits 20 Dex, making the Expertise almost always redundant, so they can choose Expertise in perception at the same time).
Hmm. That's a good point... yeah, actually. I'm not 100% sold on that exact implementation, but I do like the idea of Expertise being used primarily to make up for a low ability score. I wind up doing that fairly often with my own characters...


Nope. It's still above the average or at least par for power from feats.

But PAM still needs a nerf to bring it in line. Eliminating it's bonus action and making it a half feat should do it.

(Edit: I should probably throw in an IMO here. 😂 )
Eh, I don't want to stop and houserule everything in the game, which I... quite easily could, probably to the annoyance of my players. The specific feat-notes were more because the general rule made them largely obsolete.


I haven't read the entire thread, but it would be helpful to the OP to say what are you trying to accomplish with these rules.

My 2c so far:

- If you want more reliable skills you can always use 2d10 or 3d6 (or 4d6 for that matter, or giving advantage to everyone who has proficiency) instead of reworking all PCs and monsters or messing with "short rest" stuff.

- GWM is actually one of the few things that make using a 2h weapon great. Otherwise, there is not much reason to use a greataxe, for example. (although I DO agree that SS is too strong and GWM beats dual wielding, etc - but with your rule it seem PAM is now the best melee style).

EDIT: also:

- Do you want people to multi-class MORE and use odd race/class combinations? Because that seems to be some of the effects you might get.
I can do that.

I think using alternate dice for skills would lead to more confusion than double Proficiency, not less.

[ATHATH]

Farther still, the waters come to a sudden end in a wall of iron, smooth and solid and stretching in every direction without the slightest deviation.



Iron is exceptionally rare on Mroz

Uh... Do you mind explaining this?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Uh... Do you mind explaining this?
It might be more fair to say "very restricted.". The iron has to be (painstakingly) mined by the Rusalka, then transported a very long ways through dangerous deep ocean and tunnels before anyone else can get their hands on some-- and the Rusalka, knowing they have a monopoly, both charge a premium and restrict the supply. And iron rusts, of course, starting as soon as it's separated from the core, so even when you do get your hands on some it won't last forever.

[furby076]

Do you allow mystics? Mastery of ice focus and adaptive body environmental adaptation will screw with your cold setting

[Pex]

General Stuff, for Feel

Resting: Morz is cold and unforgiving. Short Rests are impossible without some sort of shelter from the elements--at least an overhang and a small fire, say. Long Rests are only possible in a town, or some similar source of shelter
Damage and Healing: You recover all your hit points during a Short Rest. However, if you drop to zero HP or suffer a critical hit, you lose a hit die. If you have no hit dice to lose, you take a level of exhaustion instead. Level 3 Exhaustion also grants opponents Advantage on saves against your spells or abilities.
Equipment: Iron is exceptionally rare on Mroz-- most weapons and armor are made out of wood, bone, hide, stone, and ceramics. This does not affect their stats, or their availability-- instead, metal weapons and armor grant +1 attack and damage and bypass resistances as if they were magic.
Cold: Mroz is cold. Real cold. Characters without Resistance to cold, or a racial ability like the Vucari’s, take the following penalties:

Away from a lineae, no cold weather gear: 1 level of exhaustion and 1d6 cold/level of exhaustion per hour
Away from a lineae, cold weather gear: 1 level of exhaustion and 1d6 cold/level of exhaustion per day; resting for 8 hours in near a fire will remove one level, as if you’d taken a Long Rest.
In a lineae, no cold weather gear: As above
In a lineae, cold weather gear: Your feel real cold.



Taking the view of hypothetically being a player in your game what would bother me.

I'm ok with the change in resting by rule. I'm concerned about the ratio of how many long rests do I get per game session. I'm fine with flavor text it can only happen in town. How often will the party be in a town to get that long rest compared to number of game sessions played?

You need to ease the cold rules. Anyone without cold resistance is The Suck, cold weather outfit or not, just for existing. It will be a continuous frustration to deal with. You force players to choose class features or races that provide it, even if it's a multiclass tax just to not have to deal with it. Player choice is an illusion. At worst, just have a cold weather outfit be a requirement for travel. You can add characters without cold resistance have disadvantage on saving throws vs magical cold effects. Still an annoyance but no longer a Must Get Rid Of To Have Fun.

Any extra penalty on a critical hit hurts the players more than the monsters. It fits your criteria of making combat more deadly, but players are at a disadvantage. Monsters don't care about hit dice because they don't rest to heal. They die. If they win the combat it's a TPK, so the game is over. You, as DM, are never affected by the rule.

[polymphus]

Does the double damage for crits include modifiers, or does it only double the dice roll?

Also, you call it 'Mroz' and 'Morz' at various points and I'm not sure which is correct.

Also re crits removing hit-dice, I get that you're trying to be unforgiving but that's pretty crazy. I'd be tempted to have something like "when you're struck by a critical hit, roll a d20. On an 11-20, calculate the critical hit as normal. On a 2-10, in addition to the critical hit, you lose 1 hit dice until your next short rest. On a 1, you permanently lose 1 hit dice."

It's still present and scary as hell, but 1/400 makes it more reasonable than 1/20. Even telling players about it will scare the hell out of them and get the tension you want, and when it does happen, it still hurts.

[Potato_Priest]

Nope. It's still above the average or at least par for power from feats.

But PAM still needs a nerf to bring it in line. Eliminating it's bonus action and making it a half feat should do it.

(Edit: I should probably throw in an IMO here. 😂 )

I mean, how do you define average or par? Is it just an average of all feats mashed together, not accounting for build? All feats mashed together, assuming their best possible usage? The most popular feats established as the standard?

It's pretty much impossible to establish "par" or "average" for feat power level, and all you'll generally be able to agree on is which ones are at the top and the bottom, and not where the middle ought to be.

I suppose that's all covered by your IMO, but I just wanted to nitpick your opinions. :smallwink:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Do you allow mystics? Mastery of ice focus and adaptive body environmental adaptation will screw with your cold setting
I'm currently undecided, but I'm not too worried about an option here or there making the cold more survivable (out of the 11 available RAW and custom races, 5 get at least environmental cold resistance). I want it to be noticeable, but not crippling.


Taking the view of hypothetically being a player in your game what would bother me.

I'm ok with the change in resting by rule. I'm concerned about the ratio of how many long rests do I get per game session. I'm fine with flavor text it can only happen in town. How often will the party be in a town to get that long rest compared to number of game sessions played?

You need to ease the cold rules. Anyone without cold resistance is The Suck, cold weather outfit or not, just for existing. It will be a continuous frustration to deal with. You force players to choose class features or races that provide it, even if it's a multiclass tax just to not have to deal with it. Player choice is an illusion. At worst, just have a cold weather outfit be a requirement for travel. You can add characters without cold resistance have disadvantage on saving throws vs magical cold effects. Still an annoyance but no longer a Must Get Rid Of To Have Fun.

Any extra penalty on a critical hit hurts the players more than the monsters. It fits your criteria of making combat more deadly, but players are at a disadvantage. Monsters don't care about hit dice because they don't rest to heal. They die. If they win the combat it's a TPK, so the game is over. You, as DM, are never affected by the rule.
My plan is (at least at the start) to do a Kingmaker/small-town-development type thing, with the PCs slowly assuming leadership of a frontier outpost and transforming it into an established town/city-- I'm not planning on throwing them into the wilderness for months at a time.

I don't want the cold rules to be that onerous, just enough to make things dangerous for the unprepared. Cold weather gear isn't going to be rare or anything, but this is supposed to be a setting with dangerous and unforgiving wilderness (for humans, at least). I figured that "penalties at the end of the day, undone by an eight-hour rest" was mild enough that it wouldn't be a major concern. Am I overlooking something that would make it worse?


Does the double damage for crits include modifiers, or does it only double the dice roll?

Also, you call it 'Mroz' and 'Morz' at various points and I'm not sure which is correct.

Also re crits removing hit-dice, I get that you're trying to be unforgiving but that's pretty crazy. I'd be tempted to have something like "when you're struck by a critical hit, roll a d20. On an 11-20, calculate the critical hit as normal. On a 2-10, in addition to the critical hit, you lose 1 hit dice until your next short rest. On a 1, you permanently lose 1 hit dice."

It's still present and scary as hell, but 1/400 makes it more reasonable than 1/20. Even telling players about it will scare the hell out of them and get the tension you want, and when it does happen, it still hurts.
Double everything-- roll once and multiply by two. So, slightly higher.

Should be Mroz, sorry. I'm using a lot of Slavic mythology in the setting, and basing the major languages on Russian, Finnish, and Polish-- "Mroz" is Polish for "frost," according to Google Translate.

I'm not permanently stealing hit die, but... the "lose a HD on a crit" part seems to be seen as kinda severe (despite not needing them for healing), so maybe it's worth cutting back to just "when you drop to zero?"

[Laserlight]

I like the "double proficiency" and the "everyone can Power Attack". I would sign on for this campaign, although I'd almost certainly take a cold-impervious race (too bad I can't do that in real life).

The main question I'd ask is how much use are the lore and social skills likely to have? Given the setting, it sounds like Survival and Nature are likely to be important but History, for example, would not.

[Tanarii]

You need to ease the cold rules. Anyone without cold resistance is The Suck, cold weather outfit or not, just for existing. It will be a continuous frustration to deal with. You force players to choose class features or races that provide it, even if it's a multiclass tax just to not have to deal with it. Player choice is an illusion. At worst, just have a cold weather outfit be a requirement for travel. You can add characters without cold resistance have disadvantage on saving throws vs magical cold effects. Still an annoyance but no longer a Must Get Rid Of To Have Fun.Or, y'know, just sit by a fire at least once a day. The kind of thing most characters do during a Long Rest. Also can be done as part of a Short Rest.

A penalty for "freezing out in the tundra with no way to start a fire" isn't unreasonable in any game. Hard-coding it as a house rule gives the players a heads up they should plan clothing & the ability to start fires on the regular, as opposed to ignoring the concept.


I suppose that's all covered by your IMO, but I just wanted to nitpick your opinions. :smallwink:Oh good. I was starting to get worried it wouldn't happen. :smallbiggrin:

In this case, I define "par" as "in my opinion, gives a mechanical advantage in combat that equals or exceeds the usefulness of any other feat". A bonus action attack with a 2H weapon on crit or kill is worth a full feat IMO. As a half-feat it's just gravy. Ditto the ability to ignore disadvantage for range and ignore cover. Either of those alone is worth a half feat. Both together is definitely worth a full feat.

Key here is in my opinion, because that's not exactly something I've gone out and tried to baseline.

[lunaticfringe]

So you are going to get dissenting opinions from us internet weirdos. My advice would be to give it little weight. The feedback you want is from your players.

I think your changes are an attempt to capture a tone, not the machinations of a Punitive Murder DM. You seem to come across as a reasonable person, at least from the posts I have read.

I see nothing that can't be handled by cunning & thoughtful players who signed up a more challenging 5e experience. And if something turns out to be a slog or isn't working how you envisioned, by all means tweak it.

[Pex]

I'm currently undecided, but I'm not too worried about an option here or there making the cold more survivable (out of the 11 available RAW and custom races, 5 get at least environmental cold resistance). I want it to be noticeable, but not crippling.


My plan is (at least at the start) to do a Kingmaker/small-town-development type thing, with the PCs slowly assuming leadership of a frontier outpost and transforming it into an established town/city-- I'm not planning on throwing them into the wilderness for months at a time.

Ok. I don't mind once in a while for a particular adventure arc the next long rest wouldn't happen in two or three game sessions. Conserving of resources can be fun, and I trust a DM wouldn't force players to use up their stuff to run on fumes for a game session and a half.


I don't want the cold rules to be that onerous, just enough to make things dangerous for the unprepared. Cold weather gear isn't going to be rare or anything, but this is supposed to be a setting with dangerous and unforgiving wilderness (for humans, at least). I figured that "penalties at the end of the day, undone by an eight-hour rest" was mild enough that it wouldn't be a major concern. Am I overlooking something that would make it worse?



Maybe it looks worse on paper than in practice. You are allowing the rest to get rid of the exhaustion in the wilderness even though it doesn't count as a long rest for gaining back class abilities because it's not in a town. Then the concern is how often will those "semi"-rests be interrupted because enemies/predators are attracted by the fire. Having not rested yet the character will be cold-exhausted for that encounter. Once in a while not too bad, but subjectively too often I'm feeling frustrated again.

Speaking from experience. For a brief time I had tried out the 5E Middle Earth game. When traveling an arbitrary die roll can have you become Miserable, giving you disadvantage on skill checks. When stuff happens, like traversing a large fallen tree across a river, the disadvantage becomes a big deal and frustratingly so if it lasts the entire game session.

I guess that's the key. Disadvantage for an instance is no big deal. When it's for the whole while I'm there playing the game that day, why did I bother to show up?

[Provo]

I don't want the cold rules to be that onerous, just enough to make things dangerous for the unprepared. Cold weather gear isn't going to be rare or anything, but this is supposed to be a setting with dangerous and unforgiving wilderness (for humans, at least). I figured that "penalties at the end of the day, undone by an eight-hour rest" was mild enough that it wouldn't be a major concern. Am I overlooking something that would make it worse?
No, your cold weather rules are fine. The players gain 1 and lose 1 level so the weather alone won't kill them. The only danger is that it is difficult to remove exhaustion received from another source (unless you allow them to rest by the fire multiple times a day). This fits your setting well.


I'm not permanently stealing hit die, but... the "lose a HD on a crit" part seems to be seen as kinda severe (despite not needing them for healing), so maybe it's worth cutting back to just "when you drop to zero?"
I like your rule, but it is very harsh. Mobs of weak monsters could easily devastate a party. Likewise, being dropped unconscious by a crit could cause 2 levels of exhaustion at once.

Would you consider letting crits remove a hit dice but not cause exhaustion? Then they will weaken a player, but ultimately the player is fine as long as they remain standing.