What house rules do you use?

[Throne12]

I Curious to what house rule you use and why.

[the_brazenburn]

I award inspiration generously, usually for either doing something badass, good roleplaying, or making references to pop culture. For instance, I would award inspiration if a player manages to remember that a random guard told them that Duke Dufendorf hates the orc hordes of the North Mountains and convinces him to allow them to leave the palace unscathed. Later, when the monk flips off the side of a cliff, while leaping from the heads of the falling orcs to a safe ledge, I'll award him inspiration too. During the final confrontation with the orc king, I'll give inspiration to the bard who casts Vicious Mockery while screaming, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!"

This doesn't work for everybody.

[Throne12]

I award inspiration generously, usually for either doing something badass, good roleplaying, or making references to pop culture. For instance, I would award inspiration if a player manages to remember that a random guard told them that Duke Dufendorf hates the orc hordes of the North Mountains and convinces him to allow them to leave the palace unscathed. Later, when the monk flips off the side of a cliff, while leaping from the heads of the falling orcs to a safe ledge, I'll award him inspiration too. During the final confrontation with the orc king, I'll give inspiration to the bard who casts Vicious Mockery while screaming, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!"

This doesn't work for everybody.

I haven't used Inspiration a lot in other games but on my new campaign I'm giving out more. But I have a house rule. Where you can stack inspiration and when you use one it not Advantage it works just like bardic inspiration dice.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Always add double Proficiency to skills. Or single-Proficiency with Jack of All Trades/Remarkable Athlete. Expertise-type stuff instead gives you Advantage and lets you use your Proficiency in place of your ability modifier.
For crits, roll damage normally and double it.
If you drop to 0, lose a hit die. If you've got no hit dice left, take a level of Exhaustion instead.

[Emay Ecks]

House rules I use:

-Banned spell list. Several spells are banned in my setting because they would detract from the theme of the campaign and setting. Examples are Fabrication, Goodberry, Leomond's Tiny Hut, and Teleportation Circle. Basically any spell that makes the world feel less dangerous or makes survival trivial.

-You provoke opportunity attacks on a natural 1. I hate fumbles, but this felt like a reasonable "consequence" that would mirror the benefits of a critical hit. You still get to be a badass, but you left yourself a little too open on that swing and now the enemy near you can monopolize on that. This rule applies to both players and enemies, and usually ends up in the player's favor.

-The two weapon fighting style lets you take one additional attack as part of your attack action instead of as a bonus action (in addition to its normal effects). I think two weapon fighting isn't very good in 5e, and could use a little love. This way rangers, fighters, and really anyone else who wants to can take advantage of their bonus action.

-Only the first person to inquire about something, and anyone who is proficient, may roll a skill check. If someone asks "What do I know about these runes?" then I request they roll arcana. If they fail the skill check, only party members proficient in arcana can try. This way I don't get 5 people making rolls and having the barbarian being able to outknowledge the wizard when he really shouldn't be able to.

-During any kind of PVP, the defending player declares the aggressing player's roll (or the defending player's save). If you want to lie to another player, they declare if you succeed. If you want to pickpocket a player, they declare if you succeed. If you want to charm another player, they declare if you succeed. This can be "Let Bob roll and we'll see what happens," but it does mean PVP only happens when all players want it to.

[dejarnjc]

We use one where anyone who writes an email re-cap of the last session gets inspiration.

Oh and inspiration is additive and the DM determines what type of die the player gets, i.e. you make your standard roll and then if you want to use your inspiration you can add a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12 depending on what the DM gave you.

[Jama7301]

Most recently, I ripped off one of Dungeon World's research skills (I think it was Spout Lore) for a downtime activity, when a player said they wanted to research some local and national history. They ended up providing some details to a city on the map through it.

[Mith]

I am going to test out the following for proficency and skills:

- Skill checks are rolled on 2d10
-Proficency is an additional die to relevent rolls (see Proficency dice from the DMG)
-Expertise maximises your Proficency die (old double proficency)

If you want, I'll let you know how it turns out.

[jaappleton]

-Only the first person to inquire about something, and anyone who is proficient, may roll a skill check. If someone asks "What do I know about these runes?" then I request they roll arcana. If they fail the skill check, only party members proficient in arcana can try. This way I don't get 5 people making rolls and having the barbarian being able to outknowledge the wizard when he really shouldn't be able to.


I love this one. Being able to perform a skill check only when you have proficiency should be how it is, unless the DM calls for you to roll.

[strangebloke]

-After fifth level the TWF style makes the extra attack part of the attack action. This isn't remotely overpowered when compared with GWF or dueling.
TWF = 2*(1d8+4) + 1*(1d6+4) = 24.5
GWF = 2*(2d6+4+1.3) = 24.6
Dueling = 2*(1d8 + 4+ 2) = 19

TWF has other advantages, but its feat support is much worse so overall I think it's a wash. Only fighters and rangers get the fighting style anyway, and heavy weapon/polearm builds for fighters are great even with my nerfs.


-Crossbow Expert is a half-feat that doesn't grant a bonus attack.

-GWM and SS involve exchanging proficiency to hit for double proficiency to damage. Makes them less ridiculous at early levels.

-Gritty rest rules with spell durations greater than a minute multiplied by 5, or simply changed to "until your next long rest." Long rest is a week, short rest is a night. When combined with the doom timer I had the party on, it made the 5 mwd very impractical.

-free feat at first level. Feats are fun.

-revivify is the only ress spell available. Bringing someone back is possible, but requires a favor from a powerful entity. Purely a stylistic choice.

I like the idea of double proficiency to skills though! Might have to add that in. I would usually just deny a check to someone who wasn't proficient. ("No, you can't roll knowledge arcana, Thog."

[ad_hoc]

-Only the first person to inquire about something, and anyone who is proficient, may roll a skill check. If someone asks "What do I know about these runes?" then I request they roll arcana. If they fail the skill check, only party members proficient in arcana can try. This way I don't get 5 people making rolls and having the barbarian being able to outknowledge the wizard when he really shouldn't be able to.


Have you tried instead to ask every player what they are doing when they enter a new scene? If everyone wants to inspect the runes and ignore everything else I think that is completely fine.

In practice what I see is players choosing to do what their character excels at.

[Tiadoppler]

Current campaign houserules:


Banned spells/spell consequences:
No wishes, no wishing items, simulacrums and clones have negative plot-relevant side effects, certain summons are not possible due to campaign setting, many necromantic spells and charm person type effects are very illegal within civilization. It's difficult to learn/invent high level magic, it takes a certain amount of downtime to learn new spells on level-up.


Very rare magical items:
Custom loot tables make most magical items very rare and expensive.


Encumbrance:
My players have learned to use pack animals and maintain a full, customized wagon as a mobile base/vehicle.

When separated from their luggage train:

Optional encumbrance rules (<5xStrength lbs for no penalty), with penalties for bulky items:

> An item less than 2' long has no change.

> An item between 2' and 5' long has effective weight x 2 (a 10lb sledgehammer would take up 20lb of encumbrance)

> An item between 5' and 10' long has effective weight x 4 (a 10lb pike would take up 40lb of encumbrance)

> Any items more than 10' long have effective weight x 4 and will reduce your speed by 5' in addition to any encumbrance penalties


Travel Speed:
Overland Travel Speed is speed of slowest party member (including pack animals/carts), with additional modifier for:

> Terrain type (Smooth +0', Bumpy -5', Rough -10')

> Altitude Change (Steep Downhill -5', Downhill +0', Flat +0', Uphill -5', Steep Uphill -10')

> If your speed hits 0', you must make skill checks to proceed at up to speed 5', lighten your load, or find another route.


Tactical Speed:
In addition to standard move speed, and the Dash action, there is also a Sprint action. If you take a Sprint action:

> You may move up to 4 x your move speed this round.

> You may not use any Bonus Actions, cast spells, use Reactions or make attacks until your next turn.

> If you have already cast a spell, made an attack, or used a Bonus Action this round, you may not Sprint.

> You have Disadvantage on Saving Throws and Skill Checks other than Strength(Athletics) until your next turn.

> Incoming attacks have Advantage against you until your next turn.

> You may Sprint for 10 rounds (recovers on a Short Rest). When you have 0 rounds of Sprint left, you may make a DC 15 Strength(Athletics) check to recover all 10 rounds of Sprint. If you fail the check, you cannot Sprint again until you have taken a Short Rest.

[Jamesps]

In my current campaign:

-All nonmagical classes and subclasses are allowed, including UA and 3rd party material but spellcasters have to be PHB only (this has effectively made the world and the party low magic).

-Paladins get bardic inspiration instead of spells and use it to fuel their smiting. Rangers use the non-spell casting variant in the UA.

-Outside of combat actions that involve skill rolls will always include 3 rolls. Zero successes is a failure, 1 is a partial success, 2 is a success and 3 is an exceptional success. Sometimes these rolls will be for different skills if the action warrants it (a performance involving an instrument, an investigation involving a historical fact, etc...)

[Demonslayer666]

Advantage and Disadvantage cancel at 1 for 1.

Inspiration can be used after you roll. If I give you inspiration and you have it already, gain 5 temp HP.

Bonuses to passive perception also add to active perception.

Casting a spell is obvious when under close observation, unless you have Subtle Spell. You can, in the right circumstance, go unnoticed.

You don't make death saves at 0 HP until someone checks on you, then you roll the appropriate number of saves at once.

[Emay Ecks]

Have you tried instead to ask every player what they are doing when they enter a new scene? If everyone wants to inspect the runes and ignore everything else I think that is completely fine.

In practice what I see is players choosing to do what their character excels at.

If multiple people request to do something, I will have everyone who asked make the check. I'm mostly trying to avoid a situation like this:
DM:"You enter the Mad Wizard Zariman's study. You notice many shelves of books whose titles are in languages you do not recognize. In the far corner of the room is a desk with a peacock quill, four different colors of ink, and several scrolls near an open tome. In the opposite corner of the desk, there is a statue of a fiendish figure, currently posing like they are about to cast a spell. Around the statue are feint glowing runes. What is everyone doing?"
Rogue: "I search the shelves for traps!"
Barbarian: "I pocket the inks and the quill, score!"
Wizard & Cleric: "Lets check out those runes"
DM: Roll arcana to see if you know about the runes.
Wizard: "Hmm... 6"
Cleric: "I got a 13"
DM: "You know nothing about these runes. Your best guess is that it is some kind of warding magic or really anything from the abjuration school"
Wizard: "Hey rogue, barbarian get over here, we failed the check on these runes, see if you can roll above a 15"
Barbarian: "Ok. Yes! Natural 19! So 17 total"
DM: "Goddangit barbarian. You remember back to your days in the elementary school which you failed out of, and can recognize that the runes are currently keeping the fiend petrified in stone"

[Vaz]

'If you have a beat houserule, bring it to me, written down in the final format you are happy with, or forward me the PDF/book a week or so in advance. I'll read through, make a few adjustments as necessary, and hand to the rest of the group to oversee, and then address any thing brought up as part of the group chat. We can come to a compromise over flavour and rules. As with everything, it is under the caveat that if it breaking the game in an adverse manner it will be subject to change.'

[mephnick]

If multiple people request to do something, I will have everyone who asked make the check. I'm mostly trying to avoid a situation like this:


I just don't allow that to happen. If the trained Cleric and Wizard don't recognize the runes, why would the others even try? It's like the Rogue saying "the hallway is clear." and the Fighter player, knowing the player rolled a 2, going "oh uh...I also check for traps..". My response is either "No you don't." or asking the Rogue player if he's pissed the Fighter doesn't trust him in his area of expertise. It's pure harmful metagaming.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'm going to start a new campaign in about a month, and here's a selection of houserules that I'm going to try-


Sharpshooter doubles the short range of bows, not removes the short range and and only reduces cover by one step (full to half, half to none)
Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are -prof/+2*prof
Characters (usually) have to be proficient in skills to make a check unless I ask them to make one
Thinking of trying out variant skill rules where proficient characters roll 1d12+8+prof+modifier
Losing HD at 0hp (1 for each time)

That's all I can think of off of the top of my head.

[Emay Ecks]

I just don't allow that to happen. If the trained Cleric and Wizard don't recognize the runes, why would the others even try? It's like the Rogue saying "the hallway is clear." and the Fighter player, knowing the player rolled a 2, going "oh uh...I also check for traps..". My response is either "No you don't." or asking the Rogue player if he's pissed the Fighter doesn't trust him in his area of expertise. It's pure harmful metagaming.

It's just a 5e thing, and a consequence of bounded accuracy. Players know there is pretty much always a chance to succeed at something even though there really shouldn't be (unless you use DCs above 20, in which case even the players who are trained in a skill still have a good chance of failure). So I just implement that rule, so the players know up front that they can't abuse bounded accuracy. It's basically how you say you would run it, I just get to cut the "No you don't" because the player knows they can't according to houserules. I overall enjoy 5e's skill system more than 3.5/pathfinder, so it's a small price to pay.

I also tend to be really generous towards "metagaming" and don't see it as harmful. If a player sees an enemy roll a 9 and I ask "Does a 17 hit your AC?" I'm a-ok with letting them know the enemy's bonus to hit. Chalk it up to their characters being experienced warriors who can properly gauge an enemy. If the rogue rolls a 2 while checking for traps, the fighter can see the rogue just giving the hallway a quick glance and know he's not doing a proper job of things. That doesn't mean the fighter can check for traps too, because he wouldn't know what to look for, but he sure as heck can be paranoid about the hallway knowing that the rogue did a terrible job searching.

[Gibby]

Short rests take 5 minutes, but can only take 2 between long rests.

The spells Healing Spirit, Banishment, Polymorph, Wall of Force and Forcecage are modified to be less effective, while still being pretty useful.

No simulacrums.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

The one guy in my extended group that runs 5e is using the following in the game I'm about to start with him:
1. ASIs/Feats are gained based on character level (4/8/12/16/20) rather than class level. Extra Attack and the additional ASIs that Fighters and Rogues get are still gained through class levels since he doesn't want to create a BAB equivalent.
2. Humans are broken up into subraces like everyone else. The base human bonuses are +1 to two scores. Stoutheart Humans gain +1 to the other four scores and a skill proficiency, while Wanderer Humans gain a bonus feat and additional language known.
3. Wild Magic Sorcerers use something like the FATE point system for Tides of Chaos. The player gets a number of points/tokens/pods/etc equal to their Charisma modifier or Sorcerer level (whichever is lower) that can be traded in to the DM to use Tides of Chaos. In order to force a Surge, the DM trades the player one of these points. So it becomes an economy where gaining advantage gives the DM the chance to force Surges, and forced Surges give the player their chance to get advantage.

[Kane0]

I have quite a collection, all in the link below. Many of the things already mentioned have made their way in there in some form or other.

[Vaz]

@Kuulv, I really like that the idea of the lose 1HD on a drop to 0hp. Helps prevent the meatball surgery of Healing Word.

[Dudewithknives]

We use:

1. Everyone gets a free feat at level 1.

2. Everyone is trained in Perception and does not count against your number or skills.
The reason for this is that every single character ever is going to find a way to be trained in perception and the concept that some classes do not get it as an option is stupid. Especially for classes like Monk.

3. Max HP at each level.

[Davrix]

Always add double Proficiency to skills. Or single-Proficiency with Jack of All Trades/Remarkable Athlete. Expertise-type stuff instead gives you Advantage and lets you use your Proficiency in place of your ability modifier.


Whats the math logic behind this?

I get the concept that 5th ed skills can be super low at times if you don't have training in them but wouldn't this make certain skills just gimmes for some people. I mean a rogue with a high dex would have 10 or so by lv 8 and tagging that with advantage would make it very hard for them to fail. I'm not saying its a bad idea I'm just wondering what the logic behind the change is?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Whats the math logic behind this?

I get the concept that 5th ed skills can be super low at times if you don't have training in them but wouldn't this make certain skills just gimmes for some people. I mean a rogue with a high dex would have 10 or so by lv 8 and tagging that with advantage would make it very hard for them to fail. I'm not saying its a bad idea I'm just wondering what the logic behind the change is?
Two reasons. First is to emphasize the difference between trained and untrained characters, and low and high level ones. The other is to inflate the numbers to the point that the massive swing of the d20 is lessened. (I give monsters skills too, with the same double Proficiency bonus).

[Jama7301]

Two reasons. First is to emphasize the difference between trained and untrained characters, and low and high level ones. The other is to inflate the numbers to the point that the massive swing of the d20 is lessened. (I give monsters skills too, with the same double Proficiency bonus).

Does it affect DCs at all? I think you've mentioned it before, but I can't remember at this time.

[Wryte]

These are the house rules I'm using in the game I'm currently DMing:

1) Heavy weapons do not disadvantage small creatures. Instead, heavy weapons have a minimum strength requirement to wield without disadvantage, based on their damage dice. 1d8 = 11 Strength, 1d10 = 13 Strength, 1d12/2d6 = 15 Strength.

2) Dragonborn gain the natural armor and claw bonuses from the Dragon Hide feat in XGtE as part of their default racial feats.

3) All classes that gain a fighting style as one of their class features can also choose the Finesse Fighting Style, which allows them to treat any non-heavy melee weapon as if it had the Finesse property.

4) Spears have the Reach property. Greatclubs have the heavy property and deal 1d10 damage.

5) I added the "Str DC or be knocked prone" feature of most canines' Bite attack to that of my Beast Master player's giant badger companion, and wrote a custom Ranger archetype for one of my Ranger players who wanted a more support-oriented build.


-You provoke opportunity attacks on a natural 1.

I use that one, too.

Some other house rules I've encountered over time from other DMs:

* If you roll 3 natural 1s in a row, your character has a heart attack and dies.

* Flanking advantage on attack rolls.

* Players can give each other Inspiration at will. However, every time they do, the DM gets a point of Inspiration.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Does it affect DCs at all? I think you've mentioned it before, but I can't remember at this time.
Not too much-- I stick to Easy/Moderate/Hard/Very Hard, most of the time, just with characters better able to actually hit them. (Probabilities like so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81))

[Eric Diaz]

We,, I've tried dozens of house rules, but some of then only once or twice...

Here is my current favorite (modified from this (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/04/death-saving-throws-quick-house-rule.html)):

- At 0 HP, you aren't necessarily unconscious.

If you are reduced to 0 hit points, make a death saving throw. Failure means you must tick one of three boxes: unconscious, disabled (which means incapacitated, disadvantage to everything, something from 3e, or whatever you like) or dying. When you tick all three, you're dead. Whatever rules you used for immediate death still apply (massive damage, etc).

You make no further death saving throws, unless: a) you are dying, b) you're incapacitated and decide to take any action, or c) you take more damage.

Success in this saving throw has no immediate effect unless you roll a natural 20 (there are no "success boxes"), failure makes you tick another box. There is no stabilization or gaining 1 HP without healing, although you can heal yourself if conscious, or wake up unconscious (either one taking 1d4 rounds with help).

I think the most ridiculous thing about the "Whac-A-Mole effect" isn't quickly recovering from 0 HP... but quickly recovering from unconsciousness.

So maybe use this in combination with the Low Fantasy Gaming idea of "when you have 0 HP, any healing you receive is halved" to discourage going to 0 HP.

In any case, the death saving throw would look like this:

1 - Unconscious and dying.
2-5 - dying.
6-10 - unconscious.
11-15 - disabled.
16-19 - okay for now, roll again next turn.
20 - Recover 1 HP OR recover consciousness.

The coolest aspect is that PCs can CHOOSE to fight to death. The bad thing is .... they often will.

- About allowing multiple PCs roll for the same thing, I'd allow just one roll: I call this "Static DC", and it can be applied for knowledge, breaking down doors, picking locks, etc. So the wizard will NEVER break a door the barbarian has failed to break. 5e's "passive checks" is somewaht.

Static DC (or sDC): When you are testing a skill that doesn't rely on luck (which is often the case against an stationary object), you do not roll; the result of the d20 is always considered to be 10 ("take 10"). So if a challenge has sDC 15, it means that the DC is 15 and you cannot roll against it; you take 10 and automatically succeed if you have a +5 or greater bonus, automatically fail if you don't.

The thing is: the DC can be random if you want randomness. Maybe the DM rolls the DC, maybe the PC rolls, but once it is determined, there are no more rolls.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/09/the-inverted-skill-roll-and-static-dcs.html

[GlenSmash!]

I honestly don't use any. Anytime I think I need a houserule I wait to see if it actually becomes an issue in play, and so far nothing has. My players just don't know about any of the stuff that strains the system, i.e. don't really spend anytime on this or any forum.

I'd honestly love for one of them to try some rules shenanigans at this point. I mean all the time I spend worrying about Wish/simulacrum Sharpshooter Crossbow expert and such and so on has just been wasted time!

That being said I think there is a lot of leeway in how a DM runs the game, so even without houserules different tables can have huge variance.

[Tiadoppler]

I honestly don't use any. Anytime I think I need a houserule I wait to see if it actually becomes an issue in play, and so far nothing has. My players just don't know about any of the stuff that strains the system, i.e. don't really spend anytime on this or any forum.

My players are the same way, but I do use some houserules for a specific reason:

Tweaking and fine-tuning the 'genre' of the campaign.

There are some things in D&D5e RAW that are not well covered by the rules, some things that should be easy feel impossible, and vice versa. Some things (like the economy) are quite literally nonsensical. Some houserules aren't meant as "fixes" so much as they are "additions" to the game.

[ad_hoc]

If multiple people request to do something, I will have everyone who asked make the check. I'm mostly trying to avoid a situation like this:
DM:"You enter the Mad Wizard Zariman's study. You notice many shelves of books whose titles are in languages you do not recognize. In the far corner of the room is a desk with a peacock quill, four different colors of ink, and several scrolls near an open tome. In the opposite corner of the desk, there is a statue of a fiendish figure, currently posing like they are about to cast a spell. Around the statue are feint glowing runes. What is everyone doing?"
Rogue: "I search the shelves for traps!"
Barbarian: "I pocket the inks and the quill, score!"
Wizard & Cleric: "Lets check out those runes"
DM: Roll arcana to see if you know about the runes.
Wizard: "Hmm... 6"
Cleric: "I got a 13"
DM: "You know nothing about these runes. Your best guess is that it is some kind of warding magic or really anything from the abjuration school"
Wizard: "Hey rogue, barbarian get over here, we failed the check on these runes, see if you can roll above a 15"
Barbarian: "Ok. Yes! Natural 19! So 17 total"
DM: "Goddangit barbarian. You remember back to your days in the elementary school which you failed out of, and can recognize that the runes are currently keeping the fiend petrified in stone"

The Barbarian can't do that because they're busy looting. Now, if the Barbarian just wanted to grab a few small obvious items that wouldn't take long but then I would ask what else they want to do.

The Rogue is searching for traps, the Cleric and Wizard are deciphering the runes. If the Barbarian wants to join them then that's fine. But then they aren't doing anything else including standing guard. If some enemies come the party will be in big trouble.

It sounds like the issue you're having is that you're having the investigation of the runes take 6 seconds rather than a scene's worth of time. Then, you're not having any consequence for failure. If there is no consequence and it is within the scope of their abilities then they should automatically succeed.

[Emay Ecks]

The Barbarian can't do that because they're busy looting. Now, if the Barbarian just wanted to grab a few small obvious items that wouldn't take long but then I would ask what else they want to do.

The Rogue is searching for traps, the Cleric and Wizard are deciphering the runes. If the Barbarian wants to join them then that's fine. But then they aren't doing anything else including standing guard. If some enemies come the party will be in big trouble.

It sounds like the issue you're having is that you're having the investigation of the runes take 6 seconds rather than a scene's worth of time. Then, you're not having any consequence for failure. If there is no consequence and it is within the scope of their abilities then they should automatically succeed.

I think you're kind of missing the point. The idea is I'm trying to avoid the situation where the people theoretically good at something fail, and then someone who really has no business making the check at all can come along and succeed. Players (well at least my players) know that they have a 25% chance of success at a DC 15 whether they're proficient or not. So when they see something that makes me request a skill check, they tend to all try to make one (because with 5 tries with at least a 25% chance of success is pretty good, especially once they all start using Guidance/Inspiration on each other). The idea behind the rule is to say "The first person to stumble on the skill check gets to make one because they expressed interest. Anyone else who wants to has to be remotely knowledgeable about the thing, or else they can't try"

This would be the same issue whether I say it takes 10 minutes to inspect the runes, or 6 seconds. Same example with a 6 second check:
DM: "You see the tomb of Lord Oleonotrox before you"
Wizard: "Do I know who Lord Oleonotrox is?"
DM: "Make a history check"
Wizard:"12"
DM: "You think it might have been an elf lord, but you're not sure"
The entire rest of the party: "How about me, do I know?"
DM: Barbarian, you failed elementary school, no. Rogue, you're from the impoverished slums, no. Cleric, you have only ever studied religion, no(I get to just avoid this and the entire party asking with my rule, saves me time)

My players will take as long as they want to investigate/loot. Unless there are urgent stakes (which there frequently aren't in my campaign just based on the jobs my players accept. Save the village from goblins, or pilfer an ancient tomb... My players are picking the tomb. My players chose to be very greedy, slow, methodical heroes and I'm ok with that) it doesn't really matter. I've read AngryGMs article on how to do out of combat interactions like this and pacing a scene, and they don't work for how I do my dungeons (I don't do in-dungeon random encounters. I know exactly what's in my dungeon and what it is doing. If the party takes an extra hour to investigate runes, there's not gonna be some new random monster to surprise them). And there are always consequences. In the example I gave with the runes, the consequence was that the party doesn't know that these runes are actually the only things between them and a bad time with a fiend. In the history example, the party doesn't know that Oleonotrox was a famed necromancer and that his tomb might have a surprise inside. The consequence doesn't always have to be "You activate the trap" "You lose your wallet" "You get a massive headache and are considered fatigued for your next combat."

[TripleD]

100XP to level up.

I can’t take credit for this one, it was a user by the name of Lithid over at the “AngryGM” site who posted it in the comments section. Here’s the link to the spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i70iwM6omnHvQ86BGg9oR-ZvrCsXwchJjyBB53KBiDg/htmlview

The logic behind it is pretty simple. 5e assumes a adventuring day of about 6 encounters. Lithid crunched the numbers and noticed that, assuming each encounter is a “medium” difficulty, it takes 3 “adventuring days” to reach a new level. His works out to:

Adventuring Day = 36XP
Easy Encounter = 3XP
Medium Encounter = 6XP
Hard Encounter = 9XP
Deadly Encounter = 12XP

The only exceptions are level 1-3 due to their shortness, but a simple XP multiplier for those leve (3x XP for 1 and 2, 1.5x for 3) brings them back in line.

The math works out so well that I have to agree with Lithid’s conclusion: 5e was probably designed using numbers like this that were later inflated to look more “D&D”-like.

[mephnick]

100XP to level up.

Yeah, I've started doing this too and it works well. I changed the numbers to slow progression, but the idea is the same. Experience and progress without the ridiculous bloat.

[Kane0]

Neat. I've tried the % bar to lvl-up but always ended up getting lazy and going with the 'you level up when I say you do' approach and tracking XP at all.

[Arkhios]

Ability Scores can be determined by either point buy (27points) or by rolling with the "standard" 4d6b3 -method, with a "safety net" so that if you rolled worse than you could have with 27 point buy, you can use the point buy equivalent array instead.

Polearm Master works with Quarterstaff only if held in two hands.

[mephnick]

Guess I'll throw my list in outside of the 100XP per level and PAM quarterstaff change just mentioned:

General

- Level max of the setting is level 12.

- I use Gritty Realism but limit Short Rests to 2/Long Rest. The Short Rests can be taken at any time, by any individual, and only last 5 minutes. Everyone gets the abilities they're supposed to get and life moves on.

- Every character gets a free feat at first level, chosen from a list of the weaker, flavourful feats like Keen Mind.

- No Variant Human, Standard Human may trade a +1 for a skill proficiency, tool proficiency or language up to 3 times. So you could end up with a +1 to 3 stats and proficiency in 3 skills/tools/languages.

- Critical hits are maximum regular damage + a second roll which makes them consistently stronger.

- Death saves are tracked round to round and then rolled all at once when your character is healed or checked on by an ally. You won't know how serious the condition of your fallen ally is until you make an effort to check on them.

- I use the Encumbrance Variant that sets your free carrying weight at STR x 5 and your maximum carrying weight of STR x 10. Proficiency in Athletics raises these limits to x6 and x11.


Berserker

- Intimidating Presence now costs a bonus action instead of an action. Maintaining the fear effect on subsequent turns still costs your full action.
- Primal Endurance: Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, once per day when you finish a short rest, you can recover one level of Exhaustion.

Champion

- The Champion ability "Remarkable Athlete" now applies to all STR, DEX and CON checks regardless of skill proficiency.
- The Champion critical range now improves to 18-20 at level 11. (my campaign has a max level of 12)

Ranger

- Bonus spells for Hunter and BM because WotC decided..not to..and just made the XGtE paths better?
- All Rangers get Hunter's Mark as an extra bonus spell at level 2.
- Some BM changes mainly to make the pet tougher. I don't think the subclass is that bad.

Sorcerer

- Sorcerers now add their Charisma modifier to the amount of spells known.
- Sorcerers get 2 meta-magics at level 10 rather than 1. (again, max level is 12)

Two - Weapon Fighting

- The "Dual Wielder" Feat now also grants a second off-hand attack using the bonus action starting at level 8 to characters with the Extra Attack feature.
- The ability to draw and stow two objects at a time from the "Dual Wielder" feat is now granted by the "Two - Weapon Fighting" Fighting Style.

Thrown Weapons

- Weapons with the Thrown property apply Rage bonus damage if used with Strength.
- Light weapons with the Thrown property may be drawn as ammunition as part of an attack.

Pole-Arm Master

- The bonus action haft attack with the Pole-Arm Master feat only works if the pole-arm can be wielded in both hands.
- The Spear counts as a Pole-Arm for this feat.

Spells

- The Eldritch Blast cantrip now scales with Warlock class levels instead of character level.
- Healing Spirit still lasts one minute, but now is limited to 10 charges per casting.
- Revivify costs 500 gold. Raise Dead costs 1000 gold.

[Pex]

The DM for my paladin game changed the effect of the mount in Find Steed. Because it's a warhorse it can fight. Because it can fight it can attack. Because it can attack it can Help. By Helping my character I get Advantage on attacks, continuously.

He changed it to a glorified fast movement class feature. The only Action my Mount does is move. I essentially have a speed of 60 ft in combat. Also, the Mount will never be directly targeted for an attack regardless of opponent/monster. My paladin will always be the one attacked. It's not separately affected by area effects like Fireball.

[Mith]

The DM for my paladin game changed the effect of the mount in Find Steed. Because it's a warhorse it can fight. Because it can fight it can attack. Because it can attack it can Help. By Helping my character I get Advantage on attacks, continuously.

He changed it to a glorified fast movement class feature. The only Action my Mount does is move. I essentially have a speed of 60 ft in combat. Also, the Mount will never be directly targeted for an attack regardless of opponent/monster. My paladin will always be the one attacked. It's not separately affected by area effects like Fireball.

So does the Barbarian. Sure the Barbarian gives Adv. on attacks against them, but the Barbarian doesn't really notice for the most part. Plus, mounted combat doesn't always work, so there isn't a need to be concerned about it ll the time.

I realise that you are not the person I need to convince. I just feel like Mounted Combat is not the thing to get hung up on.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Surprise lasts until the end of the round not until your turn. So say the assassin doesn't have to win initiative to get assassinate.

[Malifice]

I am going to test out the following for proficency and skills:

- Skill checks are rolled on 2d10
-Proficency is an additional die to relevent rolls (see Proficency dice from the DMG)
-Expertise maximises your Proficency die (old double proficency)

If you want, I'll let you know how it turns out.

I like that it creates a dice pool. I'd just allow expertise to add an extra die.

[Malifice]

Short rests take 5 minutes, but can only take 2 between long rests.

I do the same. You get 2 per long rest, and they're short breathers (quick map check, swig of water, bind wounds, steel resolve) and not 'hey lets stop for an arbitrary 1 hour in the middle of this dungeon.'

[Malifice]

The DM for my paladin game changed the effect of the mount in Find Steed. Because it's a warhorse it can fight. Because it can fight it can attack. Because it can attack it can Help. By Helping my character I get Advantage on attacks, continuously.

He changed it to a glorified fast movement class feature. The only Action my Mount does is move. I essentially have a speed of 60 ft in combat. Also, the Mount will never be directly targeted for an attack regardless of opponent/monster. My paladin will always be the one attacked. It's not separately affected by area effects like Fireball.

Dude thats actually the rules (presuming its a controlled mount). A controlled mount is only capable of the Dash, disengage or dodge actions. You use its movement speed, but otherwise your actions are your own. It acts on your initiative.

A controlled warhorse cant take the attack action nor can it take the help action. It just boosts your movement speed.

Your Find steed mount is smart enough (Int 6) to act on its own. Meaning it has its own initiative (should you choose). In this case it is uncontrolled (i.e. the DM runs it as a NPC, and it does its own thing) but can take any action it wants.

[Malifice]

Surprise lasts until the end of the round not until your turn. So say the assassin doesn't have to win initiative to get assassinate.

So it's impossible to use a reaction (like shield or counterspell or deflect arrows, or parry) to an attack from surprise no matter how fast you are?

[ad_hoc]

I think you're kind of missing the point. The idea is I'm trying to avoid the situation where the people theoretically good at something fail, and then someone who really has no business making the check at all can come along and succeed. Players (well at least my players) know that they have a 25% chance of success at a DC 15 whether they're proficient or not. So when they see something that makes me request a skill check, they tend to all try to make one (because with 5 tries with at least a 25% chance of success is pretty good, especially once they all start using Guidance/Inspiration on each other). The idea behind the rule is to say "The first person to stumble on the skill check gets to make one because they expressed interest. Anyone else who wants to has to be remotely knowledgeable about the thing, or else they can't try"


No, I get it.

I'm just saying that you should instead not allow every character to do everything.

Make them choose what they are doing. If all characters do the one thing, then no one is doing anything else. If every character studies the runes then they are likely going to be surprised by the monsters, and no one will find the treasure, or disarm the traps, or find the secret room, etc.

Allow them to make choices and make those choices matter. You will quickly find that they will choose to do the things they are good at and not do the things they are not good at.

I also don't believe in the idea that they 'have no business making the check' unless it is DC 20 or higher. Fantasy stories are filled with this sort of thing. While the group tries to find the secret door the bored Barbarian rests against the wall and activates it accidentally.

But that's beside the point. You don't want them to make the attempt. The best way to do that is to have it come at a cost.

If there is no cost because there is no tension or drama in the situation then just narrate success of the character with the highest modifier. Don't roll. It's not an interesting situation so you're just wasting time.

[ad_hoc]

The math works out so well that I have to agree with Lithid’s conclusion: 5e was probably designed using numbers like this that were later inflated to look more “D&D”-like.

You should take a look at the actual experience table.

It was designed to have more time in the different tiers.

Levels 1-4 are short.

Levels 5-10 take the most amount of time.

Then 11-20 take a shorter and shorter amount of time with the biggest drop off happening at 11.

If your houserule mimicked 5e it would start at 50xp then rise to somewhere around 150-200xp then down to 100xp at 11, falling to 50xp by 20th level.

Another big difference is that experience is not awarded based on encounter difficulty like it is in 3e. It is fixed. So your houserule is essentially bringing back 3e experience. So it's not just about having bigger numbers to look like D&D, there is a function to the bigger numbers.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So it's impossible to use a reaction (like shield or counterspell or deflect arrows, or parry) to an attack from surprise no matter how fast you are?

No you're surprised, the point is so stealth characters aren't punished because they didn't win initiative. Initiative is not perception and stealthy characters are already punished enough by the non-stealthy characters in the group. And its never been possible to do any of that to an attack from surprise. But under the standard rules surprise ends when your first turn in combat ends

This is the oddity that can play out when initiative beats surprise.

Assassin is stalking the target, he decides to attack, roll for initiative. The target wins and is no longer surprised when it comes to the rogue's turn, but the rogue hasn't actually acted yet so he can elect not to attack and remain hidden. The target is still unaware of the rogue, so what does he do with his turn? Whatever he was doing before. Now according to the combat rules, combat ends when the fighting stops, there is no fighting thus combat immediately ends. The rogue can simply repeat this until either the target spots him or he wins initiative against him.

In our group we like our ambushes to be well ambushes, no matter which side we happen to be on.

[ad_hoc]

The target wins and is no longer surprised when it comes to the rogue's turn, but the rogue hasn't actually acted yet so he can elect not to attack and remain hidden.


He can't. He has already declared what he is doing.

It's like saying "I open the door."

Okay, the door was trapped - "Oh okay, I don't open the door then"

Or - "I jump the chasm" - Okay, it's pretty far that's a DC 10 strength (athletics) - "Oh, I rolled a 1, okay I don't try to jump the chasm."

It's too late. You already said what you are doing. Just because there is a contested check in there as part of the resolution of their action doesn't mean the player can change their action after the fact.

Initiative is not the action. Attacking is. And if the surprised opponent is quick on their feet then they can cast Shield as a reaction to the incoming attack but they still don't take actions on their first turn.

[Wryte]

Ranger

- Bonus spells for Hunter and BM because WotC decided..not to..and just made the XGtE paths better?

That's a good idea. What spells did you give them?

[mephnick]

That's a good idea. What spells did you give them?

I forgot to mention I give all Rangers Hunter's Mark as a bonus spell right out.

It was actually pretty tough to decide, but at this point I have:

BM: Sanctuary, Enhance Ability, Life Transference and Dominate Beast.

Hunter: Faerie Fire, Earthbind, Elemental Weapon and Locate Creature.

[Zanthy1]

I have advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out at a 1 for 1 level. For example, you gain advantage from something and disadvantage, you make a regular roll. You gain advantage from 2 sources and disadvantage from 1, you get advantage. This way disadvantage is still a serious thing, but can be mitigated with the right circumstances and since those circumstances aren't easy to come by, makes it not so overwhelmingly silly

[Theodoxus]

I use a ton of houserules, but probably my favorite in general is granting a feat at every odd level, and splitting all feats into half feats (removing the 1/2 ASI from those that have it). ASI's are granted at levels 4,8,12,16 and 19 - fighters and rogues get their choice of ASI/Feat at their extra levels, per normal. Multiclassing also requires a feat - 1st feat enters the new class, but requires the next feat they get to also go to that class (without added benefit) - then every feat spent on the class is a 1:1 for leveling. They can max out a class at 6th level (7 feats total) and a 3rd class can be purchased the same way, for a total of 3 levels (4 feats). - I brazenly stole this from Zman and my players love it.



-You provoke opportunity attacks on a natural 1. I hate fumbles, but this felt like a reasonable "consequence" that would mirror the benefits of a critical hit. You still get to be a badass, but you left yourself a little too open on that swing and now the enemy near you can monopolize on that. This rule applies to both players and enemies, and usually ends up in the player's favor.

Just curious if you have similar rules for ranged attacks? Otherwise this just hurts melee more for little benefit...

[Malifice]

No you're surprised, the point is so stealth characters aren't punished because they didn't win initiative.

Theyre not punished. They get a free rounds worth of actions. Every time. In addition at least half the time their target cant take reactions against that attack.

In addition, they often get two whole turns worth of attacks in before the target gets a turn.


Initiative is not perception and stealthy characters are already punished enough by the non-stealthy characters in the group. And its never been possible to do any of that to an attack from surprise. But under the standard rules surprise ends when your first turn in combat ends

Thats because the rules recognize that the target of your attack gets a chance to react to that attack, even when surprised.

Your assassin PC declares he shoots a creature from the shadows, the creature might just be able to react in time to the twang of the crossbow to deflect the attack or cast shield (or move enough to thwart an assasination).

Remember; actions are largely simultaneous in combat (despite the stop start nature of turn based abstraction).



Assassin is stalking the target, he decides to attack, roll for initiative. The target wins and is no longer surprised when it comes to the rogue's turn, but the rogue hasn't actually acted yet so he can elect not to attack and remain hidden.

No he cant take his action back!

He's declared an attack. Youve determined reaction speed to that attack (via asking for initiative). The Assasin cant decide not to attack, after he has already declared the attack (triggering combat and forcing an initiative check to test for reaction speed).

Do you allow PCs to declare attacks on aware NPCs, and then when the NPC goes first and is about to fireball the PC, the PC can suddenly 'take back the hostile action he declared'?

From a game perspective, what happens is when Grog the Barbarian declares he charges the Ogre the PCs are talking to and hits him with his axe (triggering combat), and the Ogre rolls a higher initiative than Grog, you simply narrate it as 'Grog as you leap towards the Ogre, axe drawn and screaming your battle cry, the Ogre lashes out at you with his club, striking with startling speed [he moves to Grog and takes the attack action].'

Its no different if Grog had surprise. Instead you narrate it as 'Grog as you leap towards the Ogre, axe drawn and screaming your battle cry, the Ogre turns towards you at the last second, readying himself for battle [he does nothing on his turn and he can now take reactions].'


In our group we like our ambushes to be well ambushes, no matter which side we happen to be on.

When your PCs declare an ambush via firing a volley of arrows at a creature, dont let them take it back after you've determined initiaitve (i.e made an opposed Dexterity ability check to determine if the creature can react to the PCs ambushing them in time).

I mean its your game and your rules mate, but for mine its unecessary.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Do you allow PCs to declare attacks on aware NPCs, and then when the NPC goes first and is about to fireball the PC, the PC can suddenly 'take back the hostile action he declared'?

From a game perspective, what happens is when Grog the Barbarian declares he charges the Ogre the PCs are talking to and hits him with his axe (triggering combat), and the Ogre rolls a higher initiative than Grog, you simply narrate it as 'Grog as you leap towards the Ogre, axe drawn and screaming your battle cry, the Ogre lashes out at you with his club, striking with startling speed [he moves to Grog and takes the attack action].

Grog the Barbarian declares he attacks the ogre, initiative is rolled and combat begins, actions are decided in initiative order. No one else is committed to what they do until their turn in initiative order comes up. If the Ogre cuts the ropes in the bridge between them Grog's not committed to running off a cliff nor is he on the bridge because he hasn't actually acted yet. If another PC kills that ogre Grog can pick a new target.

Actions are actually decided on your turn not before combat has begun.


He can't. He has already declared what he is doing.

It's like saying "I open the door."

Okay, the door was trapped - "Oh okay, I don't open the door then"

Or - "I jump the chasm" - Okay, it's pretty far that's a DC 10 strength (athletics) - "Oh, I rolled a 1, okay I don't try to jump the chasm."

It's too late. You already said what you are doing. Just because there is a contested check in there as part of the resolution of their action doesn't mean the player can change their action after the fact.

Initiative is not the action. Attacking is. And if the surprised opponent is quick on their feet then they can cast Shield as a reaction to the incoming attack but they still don't take actions on their first turn.

Actions are decided on your turn. Not at the beginning of the round. If the rogue is committed to his action then he's already acted. If someone else kills the target when it comes to the rogue's turn is he committed to shooting a corpse? No he gets to pick a different target.

Your example is out of combat when initiative doesn't matter, and if it was in combat he'd only be declaring his action on his turn. If Initiative was somehow in play and another PC acted before him and declared its trapped he's not committed to still opening the door because the first PC acted before him and chanced the circumstances o combat

If he can't take it back then he's acted before the target and has won initiative by default.


When your PCs declare an ambush via firing a volley of arrows at a creature, dont let them take it back after you've determined initiative (i.e made an opposed Dexterity ability check to determine if the creature can react to the PCs ambushing them in time).
I'm not the DM, we rotate between three people running three different campaigns, when one campaign ends that DM retires for awhile and another fills his slot. My 5e campaign hasn't started yet.
This is something that as a group we agreed to.

[Emay Ecks]

Just curious if you have similar rules for ranged attacks? Otherwise this just hurts melee more for little benefit...

Not really. I tried doing some things with a ranged attack roll of 1 forcing a player to make a concentration check (if they were focused on a spell) or consuming their reactions. It didn't really work, as the penalty never really seemed to make any impact. If you have any suggestions what I could do, I'd love to hear them.

I've actually found the rule helps the party, as enemies are more likely to be hurt by this (enemies frequently have many multi-attacks, and players frequently don't use their reactions).

[ad_hoc]

Actions are decided on your turn. Not at the beginning of the round. If the rogue is committed to his action then he's already acted. If someone else kills the target when it comes to the rogue's turn is he committed to shooting a corpse? No he gets to pick a different target.

Your example is out of combat when initiative doesn't matter, and if it was in combat he'd only be declaring his action on his turn. If Initiative was somehow in play and another PC acted before him and declared its trapped he's not committed to still opening the door because the first PC acted before him and chanced the circumstances o combat

If he can't take it back then he's acted before the target and has won initiative by default.


If Initiative is in combat then how can they be in combat when they are not in combat?

The way you are playing the game makes no sense. This is why you feel like you need to houserule it.

Initiative itself is not an action. When the DM asks what you want to do you can't say I want to contest their initiative. That's not a real thing. You instead declare what your character is doing and then they do the thing. There is no such thing as 'my character initiatives'.

[Ganymede]

I let my players use their passive check scores in lieu of actual rolling in low pressure situations, kinda like an ersatz Take Ten.

[Rebonack]

I use a '30 XP to level' system. You get 2 XP for each medium/hard encounter and 4 XP for each deadly encounter. If the party completes a full adventuring day worth of encounters between rests, they get 3 bonus XP to discourage 5-minute work day thinking.

I also added some extra benefits to high Int scores. The four knowledge-style skills are rolled into a single 'Scholarship' skill proficiency. For each point of Int mod, a character can be given an extra language known or advantage on Scholarship checks in one of the four fields (Religion, Nature, Arcana, History). It helps to give the trained Wizard a leg up over the untrained Barbarian when bad rolls abound.

[Emay Ecks]

No you're surprised, the point is so stealth characters aren't punished because they didn't win initiative. Initiative is not perception and stealthy characters are already punished enough by the non-stealthy characters in the group. And its never been possible to do any of that to an attack from surprise. But under the standard rules surprise ends when your first turn in combat ends

This is the oddity that can play out when initiative beats surprise.

Assassin is stalking the target, he decides to attack, roll for initiative. The target wins and is no longer surprised when it comes to the rogue's turn, but the rogue hasn't actually acted yet so he can elect not to attack and remain hidden. The target is still unaware of the rogue, so what does he do with his turn? Whatever he was doing before. Now according to the combat rules, combat ends when the fighting stops, there is no fighting thus combat immediately ends. The rogue can simply repeat this until either the target spots him or he wins initiative against him.

In our group we like our ambushes to be well ambushes, no matter which side we happen to be on.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say combat starts on the rogue's initiative rather than at the top of the round? The rogue has declared an action. It is the rogue's turn. If the target rolls a 20, the rogue a 15, true the target beat the rogue, but the target hasn't had a turn in combat yet. Combat has started at initiative 15, the target is surprised, they take the assassination crit.

[Kane0]

Either that or just roll initiative after the rogue makes his attack, since that's when combat has started.

Not everyone likes doing that though.

[Theodoxus]

Either that or just roll initiative after the rogue makes his attack, since that's when combat has started.

Not everyone likes doing that though.

what! Play surprise like 3.P?!? Blasphemy!

Honestly, it's one of the :smallconfused: things about 5E. I never found the 'surprise' round to be overly confusing, but I can definitely say that the 5E surprise mechanic has foiled many a player and DM I've played with.

I mean, it's nice that it's per individual, so 2 players and 3 monsters might not be surprised, instead of one whole side or the other - but I've seen the rule played by the book, exactly once. And it wasn't some amazing OMG moment. I noted the novelty of the play at the table, everyone nodded, and we went about the business of murderizing the opposition.

Given the misuse of surprise, having a houserule taking it back to an actual 'pre-combat' round, would probably be welcome at any table I play at.

[Wryte]

Not really. I tried doing some things with a ranged attack roll of 1 forcing a player to make a concentration check (if they were focused on a spell) or consuming their reactions. It didn't really work, as the penalty never really seemed to make any impact. If you have any suggestions what I could do, I'd love to hear them.

I've actually found the rule helps the party, as enemies are more likely to be hurt by this (enemies frequently have many multi-attacks, and players frequently don't use their reactions).

I treat a 1 on a ranged attack roll as a broken bowstring, requiring the player to use an action to restring their weapon before they can fire it again.

[Angelalex242]

Personally, I rule you get Feats AND ability score boosts with every ASI. That way, the feat needy characters can have stats of 20 too.

Fighters and Rogues still get more out of this rule, and that's okay.

[Zman]

I use my Tweaks located in my signature. Currently I’ve been running a game of my E10 and it’s been going well(might get a revision afterwards). I need to update it for XGtE.

[Malifice]

Grog the Barbarian declares he attacks the ogre, initiative is rolled and combat begins, actions are decided in initiative order.

You're kinda doing it wrong. Grog has already declared he is charging forward to attack the Ogre. It is this act [him bellowing a war cry and bounding forwards to charge the Ogre, swinging his Axe at the Ogre] that triggers the initiative check for him, the Ogre and the other PCs.


No one else is committed to what they do until their turn in initiative order comes up. If the Ogre cuts the ropes in the bridge between them Grog's not committed to running off a cliff nor is he on the bridge because he hasn't actually acted yet. If another PC kills that ogre Grog can pick a new target.

You're missing the point. Grog isnt committed to completing his his action on his turn [he may choose a different action all together, aborting his charge, putting his axe away and pleading for mercy before the action has resolved].

But that doesnt take away from the fact that Grog has commenced his charge. triggering combat.


Actions are actually decided on your turn not before combat has begun.

Youre getting mixed up with the switch from narrative action [pre combat] and the abstract turn based nature of combat sequencing.

If your PCs are wandering though the forest and they are ambushed by a bunch of hidden Orcs, you [the DM] announce "As you walk through the forest, a hail of black hafted arrows rain down around you! Roll initiative; you're all surprised'.

The Orcs havent fired yet. They dont get to do that till their turns.


Actions are decided on your turn.

No they are not. There are no turns outside of combat sequencing and Grog has already decided on an action [charge the Ogre] and declared it to you. Accordingly like any other action outside of combat turn sequecning, he starts to do that action, triggering initiative.


Your example is out of combat when initiative doesn't matter, and if it was in combat he'd only be declaring his action on his turn. If Initiative was somehow in play and another PC acted before him and declared its trapped he's not committed to still opening the door because the first PC acted before him and chanced the circumstances o combat

Initiative wasnt in play when the action was declared to you [the DM]. There was no combat sequencing as yet [the action declaration started that sequencing].

But that doesnt mean that a player declaring an action [I SHOOT THE NPC IN THE FACE WITH MY BOW] can suddenly take that action back when the NPC rolls better in initiative than the PC and decides to do something about it.

In that case the NPC sees the PC raise his bow and take aim. The NPC is able to react fast enough [or at least faster than the PC) inside that split seconds difference to do something about it.


If he can't take it back then he's acted before the target and has won initiative by default.

When the action is declared you are still in narrative time, not combat time. The action declared bridges the gap between the two modes of play [switching play from narrative to combat sequencing]. He cant take it back becuase he's already declared he's starting the action. and the mechanical resolution for that action has started [initiativ]. It works like this:

1) PC Declares hostile action. [Player: ''OK DM, I ambush the Orc from hiding with my crossbow'']
2) DM Narrates the effects of that action [DM: ''OK mate, you pop over the top of the fallen log you hide behind, and line up the startled Orc with your crossbow. He looks at you dumbfounded! Roll initiative, the Orc is Surprised.'']

Now we move to initiative resolution to determine reaction speed of the PC and the Orc.

In either event the PC gets his shot off at the Orc before the Orc can react (unless the Orc was homebrewed to have a feat like Alert or a magic item that rendered him immune to surprise, granting him supernatural reaction speed or whatever).

Heck; the PC might even go fast enough to shoot the Orc twice before it can act.

TL;DR the initiative check is part of the resolution of the action declared by the PC [or NPC] that triggered combat sequencing in the first place. The action has started already. This doesnt mean that the PC is bound to do that action and only that action on his turn, but he certainly starts to perform it, triggering combat sequencing.

[Malifice]

Not really. I tried doing some things with a ranged attack roll of 1 forcing a player to make a concentration check (if they were focused on a spell) or consuming their reactions. It didn't really work, as the penalty never really seemed to make any impact. If you have any suggestions what I could do, I'd love to hear them.

I've actually found the rule helps the party, as enemies are more likely to be hurt by this (enemies frequently have many multi-attacks, and players frequently don't use their reactions).

I really hate critical fumble mechanisms.

Rogues get their ''omph'' from one big attack, paladins, barbarians and rangers get only the two [but get damage boosts elsewhere such as brutal critical or divine smite] however Monks and Fighters ['the' top tier most highly skilled warriors] get their combat punch from multiple attacks.

[Roll a 1 and you fumble] hurts classes that rely on more attacks for DPR [over one big attack].

Freddy the 11th level TWF fighter with his 4 attacks per round trips over his own **** every few seconds. Freddies clumsiness only increases the higher level he gets.

If you're going to use a "'critical fumble'' mechanism, it should only apply to the first attack roll made by a PC each turn. You only ever have one chance to fumble, and it's the first attack roll you make on your turn. Subsequent attack rolls on your turn past the first are immune to fumbling (but still automiss).

At least that way, fighters and monks are not punished more severely than everyone else.

Once implemented, I would include a weapon specialisation feat [Fighter 6 pre-req] with the following benefit:

Choose one weapon from the table PHB [page xxx]. You are specialised in that type of weapon, gaining the following benefits:

- You are immune to fumbling your specialised weapon
- Your weapon attacks with weapons of your chosen type deal an extra +1d6 damage.
- You have advantage on any saves or checks you need to make to be disarmed of your weapon.

Special: You can use the 'training' downtime activity from XgTE to change the weapon you selected with this feat to a different weapon. Such training takes ''X'' weeks, and during this time you lose the benefit of this feat.

[Malifice]

I treat a 1 on a ranged attack roll as a broken bowstring, requiring the player to use an action to restring their weapon before they can fire it again.

Mid level fighters are snapping bowstrings every 20 or so seconds?

Id be taking my bow back to the merchant for a full refund.

[TripleD]

You should take a look at the actual experience table.

It was designed to have more time in the different tiers.

Levels 1-4 are short.

Levels 5-10 take the most amount of time.

Then 11-20 take a shorter and shorter amount of time with the biggest drop off happening at 11.

If your houserule mimicked 5e it would start at 50xp then rise to somewhere around 150-200xp then down to 100xp at 11, falling to 50xp by 20th level.

Another big difference is that experience is not awarded based on encounter difficulty like it is in 3e. It is fixed. So your houserule is essentially bringing back 3e experience. So it's not just about having bigger numbers to look like D&D, there is a function to the bigger numbers.

XP is the very basis of encounter difficulty. It’s right there in the DM guide: adjusted XP totals determine whether an encounter is considered “easy”, “average”, “difficult”, or “deadly”.

And the houserules as posted do take in to account that the “training levels” take less time, hence the XP multiplier for levels 1 and 2.

I did not notice the break after 11 though (the formula on the excel sheet must not have copied correctly). Thanks for pointing that out.

In any case it’s simple to adjust: either reuse the multiplier from levels 1 and 2 or, as you said, change the XP thresholds. Or maybe don’t; if you want you players to stick around level 11 or 12 a bit longer, or maybe speed up the levels 5-10, this system makes it easy to tweak the rate of growth.

It’s that rate of change they represent that’s important, and that could be represented with smaller, more manageable numbers. Every single XP threshold in the DM guide (IIRC) could be divided by ten and result in no fractions; the fact that XP goes into the 10000’s is purely for fluff.

[Kane0]

-Snip-
Agreed with Mal. It ends up being more inconvenient the more you attack, it a flat chance you can't get rid of and it doesn't affect everyone equally.

Besides, 'fumbles' are more common when drawing weapons, running in mud, etc rather than missing attacks. But those sorts of actions don't have rolls to see if you mess up.

[ad_hoc]

XP is the very basis of encounter difficulty. It’s right there in the DM guide: adjusted XP totals determine whether an encounter is considered “easy”, “average”, “difficult”, or “deadly”.

XP can be used to estimate how difficult the encounter is.

How difficult the encounter is does not change the XP.

The amount of XP gained is the sum of the XP awards from each creature in the battle. Full stop. It doesn't matter what level the characters are, they get the same amount of XP from an Orc at level 1 as they do at level 10. It also doesn't matter how many enemy creatures there are. The PCs gain the same amount of XP if they defeat 20 Orcs in 10 encounters as they do if they defeat 20 Orcs in 1 encounter.

This is very different from 3e.

[Emay Ecks]

I really hate critical fumble mechanisms.

If you're going to use a "'critical fumble'' mechanism, it should only apply to the first attack roll made by a PC each turn. You only ever have one chance to fumble, and it's the first attack roll you make on your turn. Subsequent attack rolls on your turn past the first are immune to fumbling (but still automiss).

At least that way, fighters and monks are not punished more severely than everyone else.

Once implemented, I would include a weapon specialisation feat [Fighter 6 pre-req] with the following benefit:

Choose one weapon from the table PHB [page xxx]. You are specialised in that type of weapon, gaining the following benefits:

- You are immune to fumbling your specialised weapon
- Your weapon attacks with weapons of your chosen type deal an extra +1d6 damage.
- You have advantage on any saves or checks you need to make to be disarmed of your weapon.

Special: You can use the 'training' downtime activity from XgTE to change the weapon you selected with this feat to a different weapon. Such training takes ''X'' weeks, and during this time you lose the benefit of this feat.

The system as a whole benefits the players more than it hurts them. True, fighters and monks do have a higher risk of provoking an opportunity attack than rogues/paladins, but making it first attack only also means that enemies who frequently get 3+ attacks per turn also only get one chance at provoking an opportunity attack.

I also don't really care for your feat as it benefits fighters/monks more than the other classes. It strikes me as funny that you'd suggest that my rule unfairly punishes certain classes, but then you suggest a feat that pretty much solely benefits those classes . Extra 1d6 on a character who makes 3+ attacks per turn seems very strong, regardless of the other benefits offered.



Agreed with Mal. It ends up being more inconvenient the more you attack, it a flat chance you can't get rid of and it doesn't affect everyone equally.

Besides, 'fumbles' are more common when drawing weapons, running in mud, etc rather than missing attacks. But those sorts of actions don't have rolls to see if you mess up.

I also don't see my rule as a "fumble" and never described it as such. On a 1 you are making a terrible attack, one absolutely guaranteed to miss. It is a particularly wide swing or a very easy to read swing (something that does feasibly happen every 20 or so attacks) and the enemy has the opportunity to counter. Think of professional boxing. Someone throws a punch that leaves them open, their opponent capitalizes. It's not a fumble where someone loses/damages their weapon or something that really wouldn't happen to a professional murderer one in 20 attacks.

[Kane0]

Apologies, my post was more on fumble mechanics as a whole rather than yours specifically and had some other influences (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wENxYDrbcQ8). We're already far enough removed from reality when we're like mythological heroes fighting golems with swords and whatnot, a big miss leaving you open for a counterattack seems oddly realism-bound in comparison.

Anyways, it doesn't matter if I (or we) don't agree. Lord knows there is only one person in the world that really likes all the tinkering I do to the game, it's only important that it works for you and your table.

[Malifice]

The system as a whole benefits the players more than it hurts them. True, fighters and monks do have a higher risk of provoking an opportunity attack than rogues/paladins, but making it first attack only also means that enemies who frequently get 3+ attacks per turn also only get one chance at provoking an opportunity attack.

Thats the point.


I also don't really care for your feat as it benefits fighters/monks more than the other classes.

You should though. When you introduce a HR you need to look at the mechanical effect of your HR.

In this case it unfairly punishes Fighters and Monks. Achilles the 20th level fighter trips over his own schlong every few seconds. He does so far more often than he did when he was 1st level. He gets clumsier the higher in level he gets.

That's despite the fact that he's swinging his sword just as often as he was at 1st level.

Re the feat; yes it benefits Fighters (leaving aside the fighter pre=req). It does so becuase it adds +1d6 to each swing. Fighters mechanically benefit the most from this as they get their combat oomph from multiple attacks.

Just like Fighters get punished the most from a rule that incurs a chance of a fumble per swing.


I also don't see my rule as a "fumble" and never described it as such. On a 1 you are making a terrible attack, one absolutely guaranteed to miss. It is a particularly wide swing or a very easy to read swing (something that does feasibly happen every 20 or so attacks) and the enemy has the opportunity to counter. Think of professional boxing. Someone throws a punch that leaves them open, their opponent capitalizes. It's not a fumble where someone loses/damages their weapon or something that really wouldn't happen to a professional murderer one in 20 attacks.

Yes, but a natural 1 ALWAYS missing doesnt punish creatures with multiattack; it [mechanically] benefits them. More attacks = less chance of automissing and wasting your turn.

If you include a rule of a natural 1 ALWAYS resulting in a fumble, this actually [mechanically] punishes creatures that rely on multiple attacks to spam their damage.

Its like including a rule that 'Rolling a 1 on a sneak attack d6 results in a rogue hitting themselves'. The higher the level of the Rogue, the more often they stab themselves.

[TripleD]

XP can be used to estimate how difficult the encounter is.

How difficult the encounter is does not change the XP.

The amount of XP gained is the sum of the XP awards from each creature in the battle. Full stop. It doesn't matter what level the characters are, they get the same amount of XP from an Orc at level 1 as they do at level 10. It also doesn't matter how many enemy creatures there are. The PCs gain the same amount of XP if they defeat 20 Orcs in 10 encounters as they do if they defeat 20 Orcs in 1 encounter.

This is very different from 3e.

Apologies, I misunderstood your original statement on XP.

I’m aware of the “XP awarded” vs “XP Challenge” dichotomy. I choose to ignore it (which I guess makes this a second house rule). There are two main reasons for doing so:


From the DM side of things it doesn’t seem to square with how the game is typically played. With all of the short-rest, long-rest mechanics the game is clearing built around the concept of an adventuring day of 6-8 encounters of varying difficulty. Using encounter-level XP makes it easier for me to plot my players advancement ahead of time without having to fill in every single detail (such as the exact composition of the encounters) in advance.
From a players side of thing it just feels frustrating that I could expend the exact same amount of resources facing the same amount of challenge, yet get rewarded less. 5e was supposed to make crowds of weaker monster viable for longer, yet in practise it almost feels like punishing the players to do so since they will be rewarded less than if we just faced one big monster.


TL;DR Aware of the issue, but I view an adventuring day as a series of encounters, so I prefer to reward players with the challenge XP to reflect what they have overcome.

[Wryte]

Mid level fighters are snapping bowstrings every 20 or so seconds?

Id be taking my bow back to the merchant for a full refund.

If they're hitting the same 1/20 chance every third roll, yes.

And I think you're overlooking a very simple counterbalance that already exists for multiattack classes having more chances to hit a nat 1 on their attack roll:

Having the exact same increased number of chances to hit a nat 20.

[Malifice]

If they're hitting the same 1/20 chance every third roll, yes.

Factoring in action surge, your 11th level archer fighter is firing around 13 arrows in 20 seconds (presuming 1 attack roll = 1 arrow). Thats 13 rolls. Odds are that he snaps his bowstring in there somewhere.

Which is ridiculous. Bowstrings snapping every minute or so.


And I think you're overlooking a very simple counterbalance that already exists for multiattack classes having more chances to hit a nat 1 on their attack roll: Having the exact same increased number of chances to hit a nat 20

No, I am not forgetting that. I am asserting that the increased chances of landing a natural 20 on an attack roll (on account of multiple attacks) is factored into the classes DPR (look for example at the 'basic fighter' the Champion, whose DPR is expressly based off increasing attacks + increasing crit range).

Adding in a mechanic like you have makes it far more likely for Fighters to fumble with weapons then it is for anyone else. In fact the more experienced and epic the fighter, the more he fumbles/ his bowstring snaps and spends a whole turn doing nothing.

Get it yet? Not everyone gets DPR and effectiveness from [making multiple attacks]. Only fighters (and to a lesser extent, monks).

[Wryte]

I'm currently running a table with 3 rangers and 2 rogues. There is a lot of archery going on, and thus far, four months in, we've had a total of two or three snapped strings.

Besides which, as much of an edge as archers have on melee in 5e, I'm willing to let them feel the sting on this a little more than their melee counterparts.

[Malifice]

I'm currently running a table with 3 rangers and 2 rogues. There is a lot of archery going on, and thus far, four months in, we've had a total of two or three snapped strings.

In four months of play, you've only seen 2-3 rolls of natural 1 with ranged attack rolls?


Besides which, as much of an edge as archers have on melee in 5e, I'm willing to let them feel the sting on this a little more than their melee counterparts.

Thats your fault. Seems like you set your encounters up at a distance (ergo your PCs are focussing on ranged builds).

Instead try designing your encounters to take place at ranges of around 30' (in dungeons and thick forests and the like). Places where bows are a liability.

[Theodoxus]

How many OAs are you allowing your NPCs a round, Malifice?

If a roll of a 1 on a melee attack means you open yourself up to an OA, and the enemy doesn't take it, they're dumb. But once taken, that's it. Which effectively creates your "First Roll of the Round" critical miss, without having it be enumerated as such - and make it artificially weird... your first strike can critically miss, but subsequent ones are immune, arbitrarily?

If Fighter McRollOne has three attacks and rolls 3 1's in a round - nuke the dice - but also, that's only opening up one OA from each opponent on that round, not 3. Unless he's dancing around the battlefield attempting to hit multiple people with his many attacks... A possibility, but probably as common as rolling 3 1's in a round.

I hate critical fumbles as much as anyone - and will purposefully play halflings if I know the DM is fond of using them - but this is a pretty elegant compromise between a 1 just missing and something thematic. I suppose, if anything, I'd grant the free OA, but make it with disadvantage. There's a chance it'll hit, but less of a guarantee than if the experienced fighter simply ran away.

ETA:
I'm currently running a table with 3 rangers and 2 rogues. There is a lot of archery going on, and thus far, four months in, we've had a total of two or three snapped strings.

Besides which, as much of an edge as archers have on melee in 5e, I'm willing to let them feel the sting on this a little more than their melee counterparts.

Not really a fan of this concept - both because you're either handwaving carrying extra bowstrings, or explaining it as a different scenario, but also because it doesn't explain other ranged attacks. Your throwing axe-head falls off? Your firebolt singes off your fingertips?

The melee OA makes sense to me. I want something that would likewise encompass every type of ranged attack... I have a sneaky suspicion that won't happen.

[Wryte]

In four months of play, you've only seen 2-3 rolls of natural 1 with ranged attack rolls?

Well... our game moves pretty slowly. I'm running a table of 7 first-time players, so we move a lot slower than most. Likewise, my players all picked their classes based on what they thought sounded cool, because they have no prior experience whatsoever with D&D, or even tabletop gaming at all. Still, that's a lot of arrows fired, and very few broken strings.


Thats your fault. Seems like you set your encounters up at a distance (ergo your PCs are focussing on ranged builds).

Instead try designing your encounters to take place at ranges of around 30' (in dungeons and thick forests and the like). Places where bows are a liability.

So far we've had combat in a village square, an underground tunnel network, and are currently working our way through a dwarven stronghold, with the next planned battle location being inside a thieves' guild. They've spent more time in close quarters than open ground, but I'm not referring to my campaign specifically here. Archery in general has major advantages over melee in 5e, and just forcing the majority of combat situations to be in close quarters doesn't magically negate them all.

But if you're going to blame my encounter building for making archery disproportionately powerful, maybe we should look at your encounter building encouraging your players to do nothing but attack every round, so there are no skill checks, saving throws, or any other d20 rolls to eat some of those statistically likely 1s?

[Malifice]

How many OAs are you allowing your NPCs a round, Malifice?

As many as they have reactions for. Usually 1 barring very rare corner cases (Cavalier, Marilith).


If a roll of a 1 on a melee attack means you open yourself up to an OA, and the enemy doesn't take it, they're dumb. But once taken, that's it. Which effectively creates your "First Roll of the Round" critical miss, without having it be enumerated as such - and make it artificially weird... your first strike can critically miss, but subsequent ones are immune, arbitrarily?

The thing is a Fighter 20 is 4-8 times more likely to slip over each round and open themselves up to an attack of opportunity from every creature that can reach that person, than is a Fighter 1, a Commoner or even a Rogue 20 or Wizard 20.

See it yet? As he advances in level, he becomes more likely to **** up.


If Fighter McRollOne has three attacks and rolls 3 1's in a round - nuke the dice - but also, that's only opening up one OA from each opponent on that round, not 3. Unless he's dancing around the battlefield attempting to hit multiple people with his many attacks... A possibility, but probably as common as rolling 3 1's in a round.

Its not a question of 'how many times does McRollOne get clobbered in a round' - the question is 'Why is McRollOne getting clobbered more often as he advances in level and gets better at fighting?'

Why does a 20th level fighter have to endure a 4/20 chance of fumbling each round (or an 8/20 chance when action surging)?

Seriously; its akin to ruling that ''any 1 rolled on a sneak attack dice is a 'fumble' and rebounds to hit the Rogue for 5 damage.'' The higher the Rogues level, the more often he fumbles.


I hate critical fumbles as much as anyone - and will purposefully play halflings if I know the DM is fond of using them - but this is a pretty elegant compromise between a 1 just missing and something thematic. I suppose, if anything, I'd grant the free OA, but make it with disadvantage. There's a chance it'll hit, but less of a guarantee than if the experienced fighter simply ran away.

I would have no problem with it if it only applied to the first attack per turn. That way it hurts Fighters and Monks the least.