Feedback - Table Houserules

[PrinceOfMadness]

Hello Playground,

I'm looking to be running the Odyssey of the Dragonlords module put out by Arcanum Worlds sometime in mid-late January. We're all fans of D&D and of Greek myth, so we're really looking forward to getting to play this adventure. It's been a while since I've sat in the DM's chair, and I'm looking for some feedback on houserules I'm considering for this module - will there be consequences that I've overlooked? Does X/Y/Z need re-tuned? Do you have suggestions for more houserules? Etcetera. (Spoiler'd for length)


Rule: Race no longer gives bonuses to ability scores. Instead, each character will receive a +2/+1 to assign as they see fit.


Rationale: I see a lot of players selecting race, first and foremost, for the ability score increases - oftentimes, selecting a race they don't especially care for in the name of optimization. With this houserule, I hope to encourage players to select their race based more on racial features and roleplaying quirks than flat numeric bonuses.



Rule: Each character gains a feat (not an ability score improvement) at first level.


Rationale: Many players, in my experience, sacrifice their first feat option in favor of an ASI at fourth level in the name of building efficient characters. Yet, oftentimes a build doesn't really 'come online' until it gets a defining feat, and despite often being the more optimal option, the ASI isn't as fun. By offering a first level feat, characters are given some build diversity to start out with game-changing feats such as Great Weapon Master, War Caster, or Sentinel.



Rule: Variant Human is not available. The standard human instead receives the following adjustments:
- One skill proficiency
- One tool proficiency
- Human Adaptibility: Proficiency in one additional saving throw of your choice
- Human Determination: When you make an ability check, saving throw, or attack roll, before or after the GM determines whether the roll is a success or failure, you may choose to re-roll one die. Once you do so, you must finish a short or long rest before using this feature again.


Rationale: With everyone getting a feat at first level, variant human is less valuable but still fairly potent - I don't, however, want players starting with more than one first-level feat. On the other hand, my prior two house-rules nerf the standard human into uselessness. With these adjustments, I hope to keep it at least semi-competitive with other classes. Skill and tool proficiencies are pretty standard for most races nowadays. The saving throw proficiency is pretty powerful, equivalent to half of the benefit of the Resilient feat, and I think the once per rest re-roll helps make up the difference. Thoughts?



Rule: Players will generate characters from the following sources:
- PHB + DMG + XGtE + MToF + VGtM + Odyssey of the Dragonlords Player's Guide
- ONE setting book of their choice (SCAG // GGtR // ERftLW ))
- ONE UA article of their choice, with DM's permission, that has not been republished in a more recent source -- the 'Class Feature Variants' article published on 11/04/19 is considered an exception to this rule, and all material in that article is explicitly allowed with the exception of the 'Spell Versatility' rule variant (Cantrip Versatility is allowed).


Rationale: I don't mind if warforged are rubbing shoulders with vedalken (the introduction to the adventure actually loosely encourages this), but I don't want a loxodon with a arcanomechanical prosthetic trunk from Waterdeep. I allow Volo's and Mordenkainen's for additional race options only. Spell Versatility, IMO, steps on the wizard's toes a little too hard - I'm open to players changing out spells when they really need it, but it should be a little more work than simply 'a long rest', imo.



Rule: Ability scores will be generated via one of the following two methods:
- Each player rolls 4d6b3, re-rolling 1's once. The GM will roll additional sets of 4d6b3 until there are seven sets. Each player will select six of these to formulate their ability scores.
- Players may instead opt for the following array: [16] [15] [14] [13] [10] [8]


Rationale: This is a heroic campaign and I want the players to feel heroic. With 4d6b3r1 x 7, there should be a good set of ability scores for them to utilize - or they have a slightly improved elite array to draw from as a backup.



Rule: Characters may quaff a healing potion on their turn as a bonus action. Administering a potion to another character, or imbibing another type of potion, remains a standard action.


Rationale: Potions don't see enough use during combat. With this house-rule, a character can quickly patch themselves up and still have action economy to contribute to an encounter in more engaging ways.



Rule: Flanking grants a flat +2 to hit rather than advantage (credit to several here on the Playground for this suggested tweak). You cannot contribute towards a flanking bonus if you are yourself flanked.


Rationale: I'm slightly torn on this one. On the one hand, advantage is pretty powerful, and flanking often favors the NPCs, who typically outnumber the party. By making it a flat +2, PCs are still encouraged to be mindful of their position for benefit, but it also hurts characters such as rogues who often are dependent on flanking to set up sneak attack. The second line of the rule is merely to prevent ridiculous flanking conga lines (( o - x - o - x - o )).



Rule: Cantrip damage scales off your levels in spellcasting classes, following the multiclass spellcaster guidelines. Warlock levels (pact magic spellcasting) are calculated separately from levels in classes with the Spellcasting class feature.


Rationale: This is to prevent a Warlock 1/Fighter 19 dealing the same Eldritch Blast damage as a Warlock 20. It rewards single-classed characters (and characters who are sticking primarily to spellcasting classes) while discouraging dips, particularly in the Warlock class.



Rule: A character regains all their expended Hit Dice on a long rest.


Rationale: Frankly speaking, none of my players understand this isn't RAW anyway.



Rule: Your magic item attunement limit is increased by 1 when you hit level 7, and again when you hit level 15, for a total of 5 potential attuned magic items (8 for 20th level artificers).


Rationale: This allows characters to have more flexibility in their attuned magic items while still preventing players from equipping *everything*.



Rule: When leveling up, a character never gains fewer than half of the value of the new Hit Die (rounded down) in maximum hit points. Ex, a fighter with a +2 Con Mod gains a level and rolls a 1 on their d10 Hit Die. As 3 is less than half the value of the Hit Die, they instead receive 5 max HP (10/2 round down).


Rationale: Rolling low on Hit Dice leveling up feels bad. This allows players to gain extra hit points for rolling well without unduly punishing them for rolling poorly.


I think that covers most of the necessary bases, but I am open to constructive criticism. Thoughts?

P.S. - If you've had experience running this module before, I also welcome insight into it - I have not had a chance to look it over cover to cover yet...this thing is hefty! So as not to derail this thread, however, please send me PMs if you wish to share :)

[Yakk]

Flanking: May I suggest this.

If you are surrounded at the end of your turn, you become flanked until the start of your next turn. Creatures which are themselves surrounded do not trigger flanking.

When flanked, all attacks are at advantage.

---

The congo line - ABABA - has no flanking under this rule. The Bs are surrounded, so cannot trigger flanking on the middle A. And the middle A cannot trigger flanking on Bs.

The goal is to make combat dynamic, as you are constantly moving to escape flanking, or trying to impose it.

Note that Rogues can sneak attack without advantage. Just having an ally adjacent to your foe is enough.

[Kane0]

Looks good to me. The only things I might suggest are:

If rolling ability scores make sure the players can share the array so there's no soured feelings (I like to have every player roll one 4d6b3 with the DM rolling the rest if you have less than six players)

Reduce flanking bonus to +1 instead of +2 (less math breakage)

Allow 'lock cantrip progression to stack with other casters (unless you're specifically worried about sorlocks?), and specify how racial cantrips scale (i'm assuming they do by total level unlike casters).

Just set attunement limit to proficiency bonus (easier to remember)

[Pex]

Objectively speaking: Your Cantrip house rule breaks when feats that give Cantrips come into play. A Battlemaster Fighter player selects Magic Initiate and takes Fire Bolt. It is to remain 1d10 damage forever?

Subjectively speaking: I disagree the Cantrip house rule is necessary. Obviously it's a matter of different tastes, but Cantrips are really glorified crossbows. It is aesthetically more pleasing for a spellcaster player to say "I cast Fire Bolt" than "I fire my crossbow". Cantrips give something for spellcasters to do that meaningfully contributes at all levels of play conserving spell slots. Multiclassers who aren't spellcaster/spellcaster have even less spell slots and need that conservation and effective Cantrips to fall back on when they use one.

I can acquiesce if Eldritch Blast specifically is based on Warlock levels and becomes a class feature instead of requiring a Cantrip slot while allowing the Warlock the same number of Cantrips in addition to Eldritch Blast.

[bid]

EB does 4d10 (22) damage, longbow fighter does 4d8+20 (38) damage. Cantrip damage is 40% overrated.

Now, EB+AB does 4d10+20 (42) damage. You only need to dip warlock 2 (no invocations at level 1) to grab agonizing blast and do better than a fighter. That's what you need to fix.
The easy solution is to make EB a class feature that grows with warlock level.


And pay attention to magic missiles: all darts do the same damage from a single damage roll (1d4+1 + mod if you have the right feature).

[Teaguethebean]

EB does 4d10 (22) damage, longbow fighter does 4d8+20 (38) damage. Cantrip damage is 40% overrated.

Now, EB+AB does 4d10+20 (42) damage. You only need to dip warlock 2 (no invocations at level 1) to grab agonizing blast and do better than a fighter. That's what you need to fix.

But not really as the fighter has a far better to hit with the archery fighting style, sharpshooter as a potential option so they could instead do 4d8+20+40(78) but a more likely 3d8+15+30(58.5) but still sizably more damage with no resource expenditure.

[Jerrykhor]

A character regains all their expended Hit Dice on a long rest.

Because this would make feats like Durable completely useless. Durable is already niche and quite weak even for a half feat. Also, hit points as a resource would be more abundant, since its harder for the DM to drain the PC's hit points through attrition.

[sithlordnergal]

Rule: Each character gains a feat (not an ability score improvement) at first level.

Hmmm, this one is slightly questionable...if only because of how Spell Save DC scales. I tried to play a Half Orc Cleric once, and while having a 14 to 16 Wisdom works at levels 1 through 4, I found most NPCs had high enough bonuses to their saves that a 16 just didn't cut it from levels 6 onward. I eventually retired the character and brought someone new because I just wasn't able to do much of anything since things rarely failed their save. And it wasn't like the DM was cheating or anything, they made their rolls in the open, its just 14 was a pretty common roll when things have +3 or 4 to their ability score, or a +5 or more to their save.

[sithlordnergal]

Because this would make feats like Durable completely useless. Durable is already niche and quite weak even for a half feat. Also, hit points as a resource would be more abundant, since its harder for the DM to drain the PC's hit points through attrition.

Eh? This change would make Durable a far better choice. All Durable does is boosts your Con by 1, and makes it so the minimum you can get when you roll Hit Dice to recover HP is twice your Con Modifier. which is a bit interesting, since if you made a Wizard with 20 Con you would get 10 HP back every time you spent a Hit Dice, despite only having a d6 for your hit dice.

[Jerrykhor]

Eh? This change would make Durable a far better choice. All Durable does is boosts your Con by 1, and makes it so the minimum you can get when you roll Hit Dice to recover HP is twice your Con Modifier. which is a bit interesting, since if you made a Wizard with 20 Con you would get 10 HP back every time you spent a Hit Dice, despite only having a d6 for your hit dice.

I dont think you understand. If you regain all your expanded hit dice on long rest (as opposed to RAW which is half your expanded hit dice), then you wont need Durable as you can just spam hit dice for short rest healing. If you only regain half of the pool, each hit die is more precious because if you roll low, it might not be enough healing. Use all of them up, and you only have half of the pool for the next day, which is not enough if you have plenty of combat.

[PrinceOfMadness]

Thanks for the feedback all! Will endeavor replies to all, spoilered for length:

On flanking:

Flanking: May I suggest this.
If you are surrounded at the end of your turn, you become flanked until the start of your next turn. Creatures which are themselves surrounded do not trigger flanking.

When flanked, all attacks are at advantage.

---

The congo line - ABABA - has no flanking under this rule. The Bs are surrounded, so cannot trigger flanking on the middle A. And the middle A cannot trigger flanking on Bs.

The goal is to make combat dynamic, as you are constantly moving to escape flanking, or trying to impose it.

Note that Rogues can sneak attack without advantage. Just having an ally adjacent to your foe is enough.
Thanks for the tip on Sneak Attack! I'm not sure how your solution for conga lines differs from mine, however. Unless I'm grossly misreading it, seems like different verbiage for the same result - a creature that is flanked (surrounded) cannot itself flank.


Reduce flanking bonus to +1 instead of +2 (less math breakage)
Do you find the extra +1 to present problems at your table?


On cantrip damage:

Allow 'lock cantrip progression to stack with other casters (unless you're specifically worried about sorlocks?), and specify how racial cantrips scale (i'm assuming they do by total level unlike casters).

Objectively speaking: Your Cantrip house rule breaks when feats that give Cantrips come into play. A Battlemaster Fighter player selects Magic Initiate and takes Fire Bolt. It is to remain 1d10 damage forever?

Subjectively speaking: I disagree the Cantrip house rule is necessary. Obviously it's a matter of different tastes, but Cantrips are really glorified crossbows. It is aesthetically more pleasing for a spellcaster player to say "I cast Fire Bolt" than "I fire my crossbow". Cantrips give something for spellcasters to do that meaningfully contributes at all levels of play conserving spell slots. Multiclassers who aren't spellcaster/spellcaster have even less spell slots and need that conservation and effective Cantrips to fall back on when they use one.

I can acquiesce if Eldritch Blast specifically is based on Warlock levels and becomes a class feature instead of requiring a Cantrip slot while allowing the Warlock the same number of Cantrips in addition to Eldritch Blast.

EB does 4d10 (22) damage, longbow fighter does 4d8+20 (38) damage. Cantrip damage is 40% overrated.

Now, EB+AB does 4d10+20 (42) damage. You only need to dip warlock 2 (no invocations at level 1) to grab agonizing blast and do better than a fighter. That's what you need to fix.
The easy solution is to make EB a class feature that grows with warlock level.


And pay attention to magic missiles: all darts do the same damage from a single damage roll (1d4+1 + mod if you have the right feature).

But not really as the fighter has a far better to hit with the archery fighting style, sharpshooter as a potential option so they could instead do 4d8+20+40(78) but a more likely 3d8+15+30(58.5) but still sizably more damage with no resource expenditure.
Sorlocks, padlocks, Bardocks, and all other 'Warlock dip' multiclass builds are the primary problem I'm attempting to solve for with this house rule. I'm less worried about an Eldritch Knight casting an upleveled Fire Bolt than I am about a Cha-SAD Paladin 18/Hexblade 2 whose magic damage output exceeds the party wizard, sorcerer, etc. Perhaps I'll just make it so that warlocks are explicitly called out for their Pact Magic cantrip damage scaling and other multiclass combos are unaffected.

RE: Racial features - yes, my intention is for racial cantrips to scale based on character level. Nice catch!

RE: Magic Initiate and similar feats - To be honest, I think that's fine. If your goal is to pick damage dealing cantrips as a Barbarian, Fighter, etc, then yes, those feats become significantly less attractive, but they're still useful for picking utility cantrips. My thought is that if you aren't investing levels into spellcasting classes, your spellcasting should be stagnating as you instead focus your EXP into more martial classes.


On other comments by Kane0:

If rolling ability scores make sure the players can share the array so there's no soured feelings (I like to have every player roll one 4d6b3 with the DM rolling the rest if you have less than six players)
Maybe I wasn't clear - this is the solution I'm trying to implement. Each player makes one roll of 4d6b3r1. The GM makes additional rolls until there are 7x 4d6b3r1. Then every player at the table will pick 6 of those 7 for their ability scores.

Just set attunement limit to proficiency bonus (easier to remember)
I like this a lot, actually. Consider it implemented!


On Hit Dice and Durable:

Because this would make feats like Durable completely useless. Durable is already niche and quite weak even for a half feat. Also, hit points as a resource would be more abundant, since its harder for the DM to drain the PC's hit points through attrition.


Eh? This change would make Durable a far better choice. All Durable does is boosts your Con by 1, and makes it so the minimum you can get when you roll Hit Dice to recover HP is twice your Con Modifier. which is a bit interesting, since if you made a Wizard with 20 Con you would get 10 HP back every time you spent a Hit Dice, despite only having a d6 for your hit dice.


I dont think you understand. If you regain all your expanded hit dice on long rest (as opposed to RAW which is half your expanded hit dice), then you wont need Durable as you can just spam hit dice for short rest healing. If you only regain half of the pool, each hit die is more precious because if you roll low, it might not be enough healing. Use all of them up, and you only have half of the pool for the next day, which is not enough if you have plenty of combat.

Full disclosure - my table has only ever played this with this houserule, even if only unofficially (the group almost never remembers the 1/2 HD rule exists). Do you find that the 1/2 HD rule makes the adventuring day significantly grittier? If so, I may employ it in order to impress upon them the monumental nature of the trials they face.


On 1st Level Feats:

Rule: Each character gains a feat (not an ability score improvement) at first level.

Hmmm, this one is slightly questionable...if only because of how Spell Save DC scales. I tried to play a Half Orc Cleric once, and while having a 14 to 16 Wisdom works at levels 1 through 4, I found most NPCs had high enough bonuses to their saves that a 16 just didn't cut it from levels 6 onward. I eventually retired the character and brought someone new because I just wasn't able to do much of anything since things rarely failed their save. And it wasn't like the DM was cheating or anything, they made their rolls in the open, its just 14 was a pretty common roll when things have +3 or 4 to their ability score, or a +5 or more to their save.

I'm not sure I was clear with this house rule: every character gets a feat at 1st level in addition to the +2/+1 for new characters (see my racial ability scores house rule adjustment). Characters are still able to select Feats or ASIs normally at every 4th class level. Does that answer your concern, or am I misunderstanding it?


Any other thoughts/concerns? I'm particularly interested in feedback on removing ability scores from Race and on the human race adjustments - I want to make sure there is still compelling reason to take humans vs other racial options!

[bid]

But not really as the fighter has a far better to hit with the archery fighting style, sharpshooter as a potential option so they could instead do 4d8+20+40(78) but a more likely 3d8+15+30(58.5) but still sizably more damage with no resource expenditure.
Even better, cantrip damage is 130% overrated.:smallbiggrin:


Joke aside, it's unfair to compare a feat with an invocation.

[Teaguethebean]

Even better, cantrip damage is 130% overrated.:smallbiggrin:


Joke aside, it's unfair to compare a feat with an invocation.

I disagree as the fighter gets a few extra and the warlock will have to invest at least one into concentration.

[Teaguethebean]

Any other thoughts/concerns? I'm particularly interested in feedback on removing ability scores from Race and on the human race adjustments - I want to make sure there is still compelling reason to take humans vs other racial options!

I would just shake up how they distribute the scores based on their race. As in a half-elf still gets a +2 an two +1s and a triton would simply get three +1s.
Seems unnecessary to nerf half-elf.
Also I just wanna say your human seems really cool.

[Pandyman]

The first rule i actually use something similar. The only difference is that I simply allow them to replace ability score trait of the races with any +2/+1 but i also give them the option to choose the race's original ability trait. Primarily this makes mountain dwarves a great option still in my game, and I only do that because it seems like almost no one picks dwarves in my games.

The second rule I don't care too much about, because my groups doesn't seem to always pick one or the other when it comes to feats or ASI at level 4. I'd prefer to leave it open to them to do whatever they want.


Rule: Your magic item attunement limit is increased by 1 when you hit level 7, and again when you hit level 15, for a total of 5 potential attuned magic items (8 for 20th level artificers).

Hot dog, artificers getting a +8 to their saves in those lvl 20 one shots. Otherwise, I think this is fine since it comes so late, but I'd have so much trouble picking 8 attunement items.


EB does 4d10 (22) damage, longbow fighter does 4d8+20 (38) damage. Cantrip damage is 40% overrated.

Now, EB+AB does 4d10+20 (42) damage. You only need to dip warlock 2 (no invocations at level 1) to grab agonizing blast and do better than a fighter. That's what you need to fix.
The easy solution is to make EB a class feature that grows with warlock level.

The fighter can also get the archery fighting style, which gives them a 10% better chance to hit. Once you consider that the warlock is hitting 90% as often as the fighter, their average damage for EB+AB is actually 90% of 42, or 37.8 which is just in line with a standard attack action from a 20th level fighter. This definitely makes it slightly problematic when multiclassing is considered though; so I don't think this really devalues your point, I agree that eldritch blast would have been better if it grew with your warlock levels like it did in 3e.

[Yakk]

I'm not sure how your solution for conga lines differs from mine, however. Unless I'm grossly misreading it, seems like different verbiage for the same result - a creature that is flanked (surrounded) cannot itself flank.
1. Flanking is replaced by being "surrounded" at the end of your turn. Simply moving into flanking position doesn't trigger flanking.
2. Once flanked, you grant advantage to everybody until the end of your next turn. So the "3 people surround a target" bit and only 2 get flanking is erased. This also makes theatre of the mind work better. Also, if flanked, you grant advantage against ranged attacks too (you are distracted because surrounded).
3. Because it is harder to become flanked and you can do things about it, flanking still grants advantage.

This means that threatening a flank is a form of soft-forced movement; the enemy has to move or be screwed. That movement requires mobility features, or using disengage action, or suffering OAs. Staying in formation makes it harder to be flanked; breaking a formation (or, out-flanking it) can then let you roll up the enemy.

Take 4 people in a tight square formation.

A
XX
XXB

The top-right X is "surrounded" by A and B. So they could break formation to prevent the flank, or attempt to push A or B out of position, or try to kill A or B. The allied X's can do the same.

I want flanking to trigger tactical decisions about positioning, and when surrounded make your decisions agonizing.

In theatre of the mind, it means you'll want to talk about lines of defence, and the DM can say "the orcs have begun to out flank you on the right" and give the PCs on the right their turn to see what they'll do about it.


---

As for EB, making it a warlock class feature sounds good to me.

Eldritch Blast
As an action you can cast the Eldritch Blast cantrip. It deals 1d10 force damage to its target, has a range of 120 feet, requires V S components, and is instantaneous. Starting at Warlock level 2, you also add your Charisma bonus to its damage.

At Warlock level 5, 11 and 17 you gain an additional beam. These can target the same or different target.

[Keravath]

EB does 4d10 (22) damage, longbow fighter does 4d8+20 (38) damage. Cantrip damage is 40% overrated.

Now, EB+AB does 4d10+20 (42) damage. You only need to dip warlock 2 (no invocations at level 1) to grab agonizing blast and do better than a fighter. That's what you need to fix.
The easy solution is to make EB a class feature that grows with warlock level.


And pay attention to magic missiles: all darts do the same damage from a single damage roll (1d4+1 + mod if you have the right feature).

EB + Agonizing blast is an easy to achieve damage boost from a 2 level multiclass into warlock.

However, comparing the damage from EB to the base damage from a long bow fighter with four attacks is a bit lopsided.

The fighter could have archery increasing their to hit by +2.
The fighter will likely have a magical bow increasing to hit and damage by +1 to +3. A warlock could have a rod of the pact keeper but it only increases to hit and not damage.

A melee fighter could have the dueling fighting style adding +2 damage to every attack as well as a shield for better AC.

Great weapon fighting style would increase damage with two handed weapons.

However, the fighter also has access to seven feats/ASI. By high level these WILL be used on useful abilities, some of which will substantially increase damage and are not available to a character relying on agonizing blast.
- Xbow expert/sharpshooter
- great weapon master/pole arm master
(A level 20 fighter could actually have all four of those if they wanted)

Basically, agonizing blast is capable of granting the spellcaster a ranged attack comparable to the basic level of most martial classes but they don't overshadow or perform better than those melee classes at comparable levels from what I have seen in play.

The only issue, if it IS an issue, and many folks do not find it to be a problem, is that a 2 level multiclass into warlock offers up agonizing blast and a number of other benefits for a relatively small investment. On the other hand, it only really works well for a class that will boost charisma anyway, paladin, sorcerer, bard and possibly swashbuckler rogue and even then it requires a two level investment decreasing the spell casting ability of their primary class (which some folks think is a much bigger loss than what is gained from the multiclass).

----

To the OP, your houserules generally look fine. The game should be fun no matter what direction you take. Making EB a class feature nerfs the warlock multiclass significantly but that is about it ... the only build that is crippled by that house rule are sorlocks. Every other multiclass combination will work fine without the warlock levels. In the other cases, warlock mostly provides some additional utility and flexibility plus a non-essential back up ranged attack (like paladin who can usually get by with javelins or a bow but EB would be better).

Also, if you are going to include UA swapping cantrips, I don't really see an issue with swapping spells. If you feel that it steps on the toes of wizards then perhaps limit it to one spell/long rest so if they want to change out all their spells it takes a while. Alternatively, allow the wizard to change one prepared spell/short rest giving them some flexibility during the adventuring day.

Having played a wizard to about 10th level so far, I find that most of my prepared spells stay the same anyway and it is only if I know of a specific objective or opponent for the next day that would require a specific spell that I change things up ... however, it is pretty rare to have sufficient intel on the entire adventuring day that would make it worthwhile changing out a significant fraction of my spells.

[Kane0]

Do you find the extra +1 to present problems at your table?

Not an incredible change of the game math but it is significant. It basically boils down to how much importance you want to place on flanking and positioning. Either one is much better than advantage though.




Sorlocks, padlocks, Bardocks, and all other 'Warlock dip' multiclass builds are the primary problem I'm attempting to solve for with this house rule. I'm less worried about an Eldritch Knight casting an upleveled Fire Bolt than I am about a Cha-SAD Paladin 18/Hexblade 2 whose magic damage output exceeds the party wizard, sorcerer, etc. Perhaps I'll just make it so that warlocks are explicitly called out for their Pact Magic cantrip damage scaling and other multiclass combos are unaffected.

RE: Magic Initiate and similar feats - To be honest, I think that's fine. If your goal is to pick damage dealing cantrips as a Barbarian, Fighter, etc, then yes, those feats become significantly less attractive, but they're still useful for picking utility cantrips. My thought is that if you aren't investing levels into spellcasting classes, your spellcasting should be stagnating as you instead focus your EXP into more martial classes.

If that's what you're concerned about then address it directly, as ruling around it will have unforseen side-effects like feat and racial cantrips. For example one of the following:
- Agonizing Blast scales by Warlock level rather than automatically with the cantrip (applies to one blast at 'lock level 2, two at 5, three at 11 and four at 17)
- Make Eldritch Blast one attack that scales in damage like Firebolt, and only splits into multiple attacks at Warlock levels 5, 11 and 17

If you do want to blanket change all cantrips anyways, I would say allow feat cantrips to scale by level just like racial cantrips, but even that can get messy (different cantrips at different levels on the same character, half casters and partial casters, what about the Druidic and Holy warrior fighting styles from UA, etc).

[Man_Over_Game]

Almost everything looks fine to me.

I would prefer that Hit Dice had a method to be used more frequently, as opposed to being more disposable. Making them easier to obtain runs the risk of trivializing the sustained healing effects of Bards and Druids, and pushes more power towards Cleric healing (which are already the golden standard as healers).

I'm not a huge fan of 2-sided Flanking. It makes movement a bit too finagley for my taste, and it also caps early (having 2 creatures flanking an enemy is just as effective as using 6). One solution I've enjoyed is granting a bonus to hit based on the number of the target's other enemies are adjacent to it. So if myself and 3 others are adjacent to an enemy, we all get +3 to hit him. I like to go a step further and say that shields reduce a Flanking Bonus by -2, and dual-wielding reduces a flanking bonus by -1. So if 4 enemies are flanking a creature with a Shield, the 4 enemies would only get a +1 bonus to hit ((4 - 1) - 2). Puts a little more emphasis on using 1-handed weapons, and builds that focus on strictly damage will recognize what they're sacrificing when doing so.

[Kane0]

I would prefer that Hit Dice had a method to be used more frequently, as opposed to being more disposable. Making them easier to obtain runs the risk of trivializing the sustained healing effects of Bards and Druids, and pushes more power towards Cleric healing (which are already the golden standard as healers).


When you cast Cure Wounds also allow a Hit Die to be spent?
Once per short rest, spend a Hit Die to gain advantage on an ability check, attack roll or saving throw?
Once per long rest, spend a Hit Die to turn a crit against you into a hit, or one of your hits into a crit?
Spend Hit Dice to recover expended Ki, Sorcery Points, pact magic slots, ignore frenzy exhaustion, etc?

[bid]

However, comparing the damage from EB to the base damage from a long bow fighter with four attacks is a bit lopsided.
As long as you agree that cantrips do not need a nerf, we won't have an argument.

[Man_Over_Game]

When you cast Cure Wounds also allow a Hit Die to be spent?
Once per short rest, spend a Hit Die to gain advantage on an ability check, attack roll or saving throw?
Once per long rest, spend a Hit Die to turn a crit against you into a hit, or one of your hits into a crit?
Spend Hit Dice to recover expended Ki, Sorcery Points, pact magic slots, ignore frenzy exhaustion, etc?

The last one would probably be the best example, I think.

Personally, though, I find it comes down to the issue of an overabundance of Long Rests. If tables were worried about attrition, they'd use Short Rests, which would use Hit Dice. But instead, they get their Long Rest much sooner than they'd actually need one.

Solutions I've enjoyed are:


During difficult fights, or if it's expected to be the only fight in a day, the fight has a brief pause in the middle and everyone takes a Short Rest. Combat mechanics change, environment gets modified, bosses enter their final forms, new wave comes in, etc. To avoid making it feel like a "break", call it "Adrenaline" and make everyone suffer Exhaustion for doing so.


When you take a Long Rest, first expend up to your remaining Hit Dice until you're full on HP or until you run out of Hit Dice. Now regain half of your maximum Hit Dice. Expend your Hit Dice until you are at full HP or until you run out of Hit Dice. This will make your hero feel the effects of a long-term struggle as a series of continuously hard days will cause them to not heal their full HP.


Find alternate ways to expending Hit Dice:

Healing Potions no longer use their own value, but instead expend your Hit Dice and add a bonus to it.
Crits now deal 3x the damage rolled, but can be mitigated by spending Hit Dice, down to the base value rolled.
When you suffer Exhaustion, you can roll Hit Dice until you reach a sum of 10 to not suffer Exhaustion.
When you suffer damage from things other than combat, you can spend a Hit Die to mitigate that value.
When you fail a Saving Throw, you can roll Hit Dice until your Hit Dice sum is no less than the DC that you failed.

[PrinceOfMadness]

I would just shake up how they distribute the scores based on their race. As in a half-elf still gets a +2 an two +1s and a triton would simply get three +1s.
Seems unnecessary to nerf half-elf.
Also I just wanna say your human seems really cool.
Thank you!

-snip- Good comments about flanking mechanics and Eldritch Blast -snip-
Thanks for the detail on your suggested flanking changes! There's lots of good ideas there that I think I will implement - in particular, I like how your suggested flanking 'fix' drives a Sophie's Choice, making flanking more tactically desirable while harder to achieve.

Also, if you are going to include UA swapping cantrips, I don't really see an issue with swapping spells. If you feel that it steps on the toes of wizards then perhaps limit it to one spell/long rest so if they want to change out all their spells it takes a while. Alternatively, allow the wizard to change one prepared spell/short rest giving them some flexibility during the adventuring day.
To clarify - I don't mind Bards and Sorcerers being able to swap spells - I just prefer that they put a little more work into it than "I take a long rest". Some downtime, maybe a minor quest is preferable to me.

The last one would probably be the best example, I think.

Personally, though, I find it comes down to the issue of an overabundance of Long Rests. If tables were worried about attrition, they'd use Short Rests, which would use Hit Dice. But instead, they get their Long Rest much sooner than they'd actually need one.

Solutions I've enjoyed are:


During difficult fights, or if it's expected to be the only fight in a day, the fight has a brief pause in the middle and everyone takes a Short Rest. Combat mechanics change, environment gets modified, bosses enter their final forms, new wave comes in, etc. To avoid making it feel like a "break", call it "Adrenaline" and make everyone suffer Exhaustion for doing so.


When you take a Long Rest, first expend up to your remaining Hit Dice until you're full on HP or until you run out of Hit Dice. Now regain half of your maximum Hit Dice. Expend your Hit Dice until you are at full HP or until you run out of Hit Dice. This will make your hero feel the effects of a long-term struggle as a series of continuously hard days will cause them to not heal their full HP.


Find alternate ways to expending Hit Dice:

Healing Potions no longer use their own value, but instead expend your Hit Dice and add a bonus to it.
Crits now deal 3x the damage rolled, but can be mitigated by spending Hit Dice, down to the base value rolled.
When you suffer Exhaustion, you can roll Hit Dice until you reach a sum of 10 to not suffer Exhaustion.
When you suffer damage from things other than combat, you can spend a Hit Die to mitigate that value.
When you fail a Saving Throw, you can roll Hit Dice until your Hit Dice sum is no less than the DC that you failed.



I like several of these ideas and may well end up using them! Thanks for the ideas!