Democratic DM: what 1 custom rule or ruling would you want implemented in your game?

[TheUser]

I have gotten to the point in my D&D DMing for fifth edition that I take little issue with altering rules or rulings (so long as they are consistent with context). For instance crits in my games are not double dice but simply singular maxed dice. Crits are always impactful, never uneventful, but also never obscenely strong (I've one shot players with standard rolled crits so many times and I hate it).

As such, I actually have many small alterations both globally and class specific that bring things more in line with what I perceive to be an enjoyable player experience (like Warlocks using spell points!) but if I could make only one change in my games it would be Bows (not crossbows) being Finesse weapons. Giving Strength characters a meaningful way to engage with targets greater than 60ft away and letting the system be a more realistic representation of how bows work. Without going into too much detail, improving on one's draw strength helps steady the bow better, loose arrows that fly faster, potentially arc less and better penetrate armor they happen to strike, in this way a higher draw strength translates into both an increased hit chance and higher damage. Rather than get tied up in the complexities of old editions that used dex to hit and strength to damage for special types of bows I would simply use the finesse property to broaden player options and make for an ever so slightly more realistic experience (imho).

To that end, I would gladly hear what you as a player, given the opportunity to invoke one custom rule or ruling by your DM would choose to change about 5e?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Ditching Dex as a bonus to initiative. Makes sense to our group both for balance (Dex is already strong enough) and for realism (Why should a Cleric turning or a Fighter swinging a Great Axe benefit from Dex?).
We've made other changes, but this is the one I would argue for wherever I played.

[MaxWilson]

Roll initiative AFTER action declarations, not before, AD&D-style. Everybody gets to declare their actions to the DM at the same time, cooperating with each other, instead of being forced not to talk to the DM 75%+ of the time because it's "not your turn."

Reminder: this is how it works in the PHB (2nd edition).


In the second round of the combat, the DM decides to use the modified group initiative. Rath is surrounded by trolls and not in the best of health. The rest of the party has yet to close with the monsters.
The DM decides that one troll will continue attacking Rath, with the help of the orcs, while the other trolls move to block reinforcements. In particular, the troll burned by the acid arrow is looking for revenge. The DM then turns to the players for their actions.
Players (all at once): “I'm going to...” “Is he going?...” “I'm casting a...”
DM (shouting): “One at a time! Rath?”
Harry: “I'll blow my horn of blasting.”
DM: “It'll take time to dig it out.”
Harry: “I don't care, I'm doing it.”
Jon: “Draw my sword and attack one of the trolls!”
DM: “Anne?”
Anne (not paying attention to the other two): “Cast a fireball.”
Harry and Jon: “NO! DON'T!”
DM: “Well, is that what you're doing? Quickly!”
Anne: “No. I'll cast a haste spell! Centered on me, so Rupert and Rath are just at the edge.”
DM: “Okay. Harry, roll initiative and everyone modify for your actions.”

The details of how you do it and what modifiers you apply and when aren't important to me, but the principle of everybody working as a team and declaring actions together, cooperatively, is something that I would not want to live without. I see so many complaints online about problems that I just do not have and I blame 5E's initiative system. (Which I understand is also 3E's initiative system, but I skipped 3E.)

[Kane0]

Just one? Well crits have already been mentioned so i suppose i’ll go with:

Any short rest resource can be permanently turned into a long rest one when you first acquire it by tripling the number of uses noted.

[Milmoor]

Roll initiative AFTER action declarations, not before, AD&D-style. Everybody gets to declare their actions to the DM at the same time, cooperating with each other, instead of being forced not to talk to the DM 75%+ of the time because it's "not your turn."

You might like this one: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative

Going to test it in one of my campaign sessions soonish.

[MaxWilson]

You might like this one: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative

Going to test it in one of my campaign sessions soonish.

From 2017, I remember that article's system as being both finicky and exploitable although I've forgotten the details. Reviewing it now, one issue that I see immediately is that players don't actually declare their actions up front (movement, spellcasting, etc. get selected later, e.g. on round 1, Delsenora's Acid Arrow spell is not declared or aimed at the trolls until after Rupert and the hobgoblins have gone, so it has many of the same problems as PHB initiative, which means it has more complexity for no benefit.

The system I've been using since 2015 or so is described here (https://www.enworld.org/threads/concurrent-initiative-variant-everybody-declares-everybody-resolves-was-simultaneous-initiative.513971/) but I've also discovered that the details of how you do initiative don't really matter as long as action declaration is concurrent/cooperative. Even pure DM fiat works (a la "shooting an arrow is faster than charging, so Rupert and Delsenora, your attacks happen before Rath's does and before the trolls attack you back"). People who implement some form of "everybody declares, then everybody acts, rolling dice when the DM tells them to" tend to have an improved experience maybe 75% of the time, judging by Internet posts. Sometimes they go back to PHB initiative at higher levels so they can use Legendary Actions as written, although my personal experience is that it works just fine to simply let the monster take three legendary actions every round that happen after its regular action. Still, even then they have a good experience while they are using it.

[Skylivedk]

Roll initiative AFTER action declarations, not before, AD&D-style. Everybody gets to declare their actions to the DM at the same time, cooperating with each other, instead of being forced not to talk to the DM 75%+ of the time because it's "not your turn."

Reminder: this is how it works in the PHB (2nd edition).


In the second round of the combat, the DM decides to use the modified group initiative. Rath is surrounded by trolls and not in the best of health. The rest of the party has yet to close with the monsters.
The DM decides that one troll will continue attacking Rath, with the help of the orcs, while the other trolls move to block reinforcements. In particular, the troll burned by the acid arrow is looking for revenge. The DM then turns to the players for their actions.
Players (all at once): “I'm going to...” “Is he going?...” “I'm casting a...”
DM (shouting): “One at a time! Rath?”
Harry: “I'll blow my horn of blasting.”
DM: “It'll take time to dig it out.”
Harry: “I don't care, I'm doing it.”
Jon: “Draw my sword and attack one of the trolls!”
DM: “Anne?”
Anne (not paying attention to the other two): “Cast a fireball.”
Harry and Jon: “NO! DON'T!”
DM: “Well, is that what you're doing? Quickly!”
Anne: “No. I'll cast a haste spell! Centered on me, so Rupert and Rath are just at the edge.”
DM: “Okay. Harry, roll initiative and everyone modify for your actions.”

The details of how you do it and what modifiers you apply and when aren't important to me, but the principle of everybody working as a team and declaring actions together, cooperatively, is something that I would not want to live without. I see so many complaints online about problems that I just do not have and I blame 5E's initiative system. (Which I understand is also 3E's initiative system, but I skipped 3E.)
I use/have used something similar. So far players love it:
Everybody declares intentions and goals, DM chooses opponent's course of action and initiative is only rolled when it makes a difference (so often not for all characters). It gives much more of a team narrative which has been neat and suddenly you don't have the immersion breaking experience of two melee buddies running one a time rather than side by side.


Just one? Well crits have already been mentioned so i suppose i’ll go with:

Any short rest resource can be permanently turned into a long rest one when you first acquire it by tripling the number of uses noted.
Used something similar for Storm King's Thunder, but where it was just applied automatically to all SR abilities (with Max use in 1 combat being the previous amount you got from an SR). It worked like a charm.

I'd use both of the above in some variant, ban/NPCify some spells and change advantage/disadvantage to being respectively add a die, ignore lowest and add a die, ignore highest. That means advantages and disadvantages can stack :)

Besides that, we've changed some classes (mostly added utility and tier 3+ abilities to Martials and replaced most abilities based on proficiency with class level scaling).

More importantly than all of the above is probably giving exhaustion levels for being knocked to 0 hp.

[dreast]

“When learning new spells on level up, the restriction is that the spell must be of a level of spell that the spellcaster has slots for, not that the spellcaster can cast from their levels in the relevant class. Wizards who are copying spells into their spellbook lack even this restriction; they may copy spells into their book of any level, so long as they take the appropriate amount of time and consume the appropriate resources.

Spellcasters may also prepare spells of any level that they know and have spellcasting slots for.”

[TheUser]

“When learning new spells on level up, the restriction is that the spell must be of a level of spell that the spellcaster has slots for, not that the spellcaster can cast from their levels in the relevant class. Wizards who are copying spells into their spellbook lack even this restriction; they may copy spells into their book of any level, so long as they take the appropriate amount of time and consume the appropriate resources.

Spellcasters may also prepare spells of any level that they know and have spellcasting slots for.”

So you don't think multi-classing is powerful enough?

[dreast]

So you don't think multi-classing is powerful enough?

How many multiclassed pure casters are there? (Warlocks don’t count as pure casters for this.)

[MrStabby]

“When learning new spells on level up, the restriction is that the spell must be of a level of spell that the spellcaster has slots for, not that the spellcaster can cast from their levels in the relevant class. Wizards who are copying spells into their spellbook lack even this restriction; they may copy spells into their book of any level, so long as they take the appropriate amount of time and consume the appropriate resources.

Spellcasters may also prepare spells of any level that they know and have spellcasting slots for.”

So you can take a level of Wizard and then get access to ever wizard spell on your druid or cleric? It seems a little... strong.

[Valmark]

As such, I actually have many small alterations both globally and class specific that bring things more in line with what I perceive to be an enjoyable player experience (like Warlocks using spell points!) but if I could make only one change in my games it would be Bows (not crossbows) being Finesse weapons. Giving Strength characters a meaningful way to engage with targets greater than 60ft away and letting the system be a more realistic representation of how bows work. Without going into too much detail, improving on one's draw strength helps steady the bow better, loose arrows that fly faster, potentially arc less and better penetrate armor they happen to strike, in this way a higher draw strength translates into both an increased hit chance and higher damage. Rather than get tied up in the complexities of old editions that used dex to hit and strength to damage for special types of bows I would simply use the finesse property to broaden player options and make for an ever so slightly more realistic experience (imho).

To that end, I would gladly hear what you as a player, given the opportunity to invoke one custom rule or ruling by your DM would choose to change about 5e?
This is interesting- how do you make warlocks work with spell points? Or do you also change how Pact Magic fundamentally works?

Personally while as a DM I'm open to any whatsoever house rules my players ask for (unless outrageous stuff) I found that as a player... I never want house rules. It just makes it harder for me to plan actions or characters because more often then not I see house rules pop up mid-play instead of being communicated ahead of time and I find that really annoying.

That said... I would implement the ability to hold your turn, moving later in the initiative queue. I really like the ability to do this and it's actually pretty good but situational, resulting in it being not a particularly unbalancing rule.

Alternatively if there was mounted fighting with uncontrolled mounts I'd have the turns be coincidental- have the rider be able to take actions and whatnot while the mount moves. I just dislike the idea of having to Ready an action because my mount will move the next turn.

“When learning new spells on level up, the restriction is that the spell must be of a level of spell that the spellcaster has slots for, not that the spellcaster can cast from their levels in the relevant class. Wizards who are copying spells into their spellbook lack even this restriction; they may copy spells into their book of any level, so long as they take the appropriate amount of time and consume the appropriate resources.

Spellcasters may also prepare spells of any level that they know and have spellcasting slots for.”

Uh. Are there lots of dips under this rule (if you tried it I mean)?

[TheUser]

This is interesting- how do you make warlocks work with spell points? Or do you also change how Pact Magic fundamentally works?


Instead of spell slots that recharge on short rest an equivalent amount of spell points is given instead that also recharge on short rest. It lets warlocks not be married to only casting 2 spells per short rest (which I find wholly stifling from a design angle).

Spell points also allows me to smooth out their slot progression so instead of a big bump in slots every 2 levels I split the difference and give them that much every level up. For instance, at level 9 they have 14 spell points (equivalent to 2 level 5 spell slots) and instead of waiting for level 11 to go up to 21, they get 17 max at level 10 before going up to 21 at 11.

It also works out fine for multi-classing because pact magic slot progression is already seperate from normal spell slot progression.

[Pex]

Ignore Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) for any and all rules clarifications. I'll accept if you rule contrary to what I was hoping, but do so by your own volition. Do not use Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) to justify your ruling. Feel no anxiety when you want to rule differently than what Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) says and do it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ditching Dex as a bonus to initiative. Makes sense to our group both for balance (Dex is already strong enough) and for realism (Why should a Cleric turning or a Fighter swinging a Great Axe benefit from Dex?). We've made other changes, but this is the one I would argue for wherever I played. Then how do you roll initiative? Just a naked d20? (That would make Alert feat still good, I suspect).

Any short rest resource can be permanently turned into a long rest one when you first acquire it by tripling the number of uses noted. Ooh, interesting.

Ignore Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) for any and all rules clarifications. I'll accept if you rule contrary to what I was hoping, but do so by your own volition. Do not use Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) to justify your ruling. Feel no anxiety when you want to rule differently than what Sage Advice (Jeremy Crawford) says and do it. Heh, that's not even a house rule, that's a DM doing what a DM does. :smallbiggrin:

[Magma Armor0]

The two houserules that I've been using lately are
1. Number of Attunement slots = Proficiency Modifier
2. Skill Mastery: if a character would add their proficiency bonus to a check 3 times (due to multiple sources of expertise, for example), they instead add it twice and gain advantage on the check.
It's been really great, actually. My players get to feel a little stronger and I don't have to worry about accidentally giving a player extra magic items that require attunement. As far as skill Mastery goes, the secret is that it doesn't actually allow them to achieve any higher numbers than they originally would have-they're just a bit luckier with their d20 rolls. So it doesn't break game balance, but it does mean that the unlucky bard is still usually better at singing than the lucky paladin.

[CheddarChampion]

Remove multiclassing ability score requirements.

Everyone gets a free feat at level 1 but you can't bring an initial stat to above 17 (my games use point buy).

I'm having trouble deciding on one over the other.

[Bubzors]

More importantly than all of the above is probably giving exhaustion levels for being knocked to 0 hp.

THIS. My group adopted it for our last campaign and it was universally loved. Got rid of the yo-yo effect of going down and up and down and up we had seen in some games.

Adds another level of strategy into things. People are less likely to run head long into danger knowing going down for a second time time will lead them to having half speed. Actually filling up your HP took precedent over just making sure to have a heal to get back up when you go down

[Renvir]

At this point I don't think I could go back to the base 5e crit rules. We use max damage + normal weapon rolls (e.g. a crit with a great sword is 12 + 2d6 + modifiers). It can be tough at lower levels but after 3rd or 4th level it feels great.

However, if I could implement one rule it would be the Fighting Spirit rule that I tried during a one shot a year ago. It had a page of rules and clarifications but in essence you cut your HP into two separate stats. One of them (Fighting Spirit) recovers quickly and takes in combat damage first. The other (Hit Points) only recovers a little during a long rest unless you use a resource like healing spells, lay on hands, etc. HP also takes out of combat damage first (traps, falling, poisoned food, etc). It was certainly more complex but the added depth was nice.

[Tvtyrant]

Morale rules. Every edition of D&D would benefit greatly from them imo, 5E because mobs are so strong. There's a reason large armies of commoners rarely did well, and it is because dying knowing that you will win by drowning the opponent does nothing for morale.

[Pex]

Heh, that's not even a house rule, that's a DM doing what a DM does. :smallbiggrin:

I've been fortunate most of the DMs I played with do not abide by Sage Advice, but I cringed by the two or three who did. Partial bias in that I don't like some Sage Advice opinions, but more so I really want the DM to make the decision. I'm playing with him not Sage Advice. Not AL. His opinion is the only one that matters.

Yes, I can have respectful pro-DM thoughts. :smallbiggrin:

[Demonslayer666]

My best implemented house rule is 1 level of exhaustion when you hit 0 hit points.

To me it is extremely meta-gamey to use a strategy that has you hovering just above unconsciousness with no drawback.

[stoutstien]

My best implemented house rule is 1 level of exhaustion when you hit 0 hit points.

To me it is extremely meta-gamey to use a strategy that has you hovering just above unconsciousness with no drawback.

Isn't adding the know stipulation of exhaustion equally metagaming as knowing zero has no such rider? I'm not saying it's a bad rule to add but it doesn't really have anything to do with the metagame.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Death's Door


You have an Additional health pool equal to your constitution score known as meat. When you hit 0 hit points any damage that would carry over carries over into the meat and you enter into the condition known as "Death's Door".

Meat can only be healed through long resting or regeneration.
Long rests restore meat each rest, equal to their constitution modifier


While in Death's door you may act normally.

You make death saving throws each round like normal above the table as if in the regular rules
Each time you are hit while in Death's Door you roll on the critical injury table
Once your meat is dropped to 0 you fall unconscious and all death saving throws are made in secret by the GM


Any healing immediately heals your normal hit points and removes the "Death's Door" condition and you are no longer dying. Your Meat points do not reset.

[Keravath]

Roll initiative AFTER action declarations, not before, AD&D-style. Everybody gets to declare their actions to the DM at the same time, cooperating with each other, instead of being forced not to talk to the DM 75%+ of the time because it's "not your turn."

Reminder: this is how it works in the PHB (2nd edition).


In the second round of the combat, the DM decides to use the modified group initiative. Rath is surrounded by trolls and not in the best of health. The rest of the party has yet to close with the monsters.
The DM decides that one troll will continue attacking Rath, with the help of the orcs, while the other trolls move to block reinforcements. In particular, the troll burned by the acid arrow is looking for revenge. The DM then turns to the players for their actions.
Players (all at once): “I'm going to...” “Is he going?...” “I'm casting a...”
DM (shouting): “One at a time! Rath?”
Harry: “I'll blow my horn of blasting.”
DM: “It'll take time to dig it out.”
Harry: “I don't care, I'm doing it.”
Jon: “Draw my sword and attack one of the trolls!”
DM: “Anne?”
Anne (not paying attention to the other two): “Cast a fireball.”
Harry and Jon: “NO! DON'T!”
DM: “Well, is that what you're doing? Quickly!”
Anne: “No. I'll cast a haste spell! Centered on me, so Rupert and Rath are just at the edge.”
DM: “Okay. Harry, roll initiative and everyone modify for your actions.”

The details of how you do it and what modifiers you apply and when aren't important to me, but the principle of everybody working as a team and declaring actions together, cooperatively, is something that I would not want to live without. I see so many complaints online about problems that I just do not have and I blame 5E's initiative system. (Which I understand is also 3E's initiative system, but I skipped 3E.)

Honestly, I think that is a DM style issue. I've never had to prevent players talking to each other or interacting no matter whose turn it is ... the whole point of the game is cooperation so having a DM force players to say nothing except on their own turn always strikes me as a bit harsh.

There are occasionally times when either one player is too noisy and drowns others out or someone is very quiet and feels disenfranchised during discussions and both of those situations require DMs to intervene to mute one voice while amplifying the quiet one but if a player is constantly doing this then the issue isn't how the game is run it is the player and penalizing everyone's communication because one or two players can't control themselves isn't fair to everyone else.

I realize that this strategy of not allowing players to talk when it isn't their turn may work fine for many tables and they may be very happy with it but I prefer to avoid it and simply step in and moderate the free flow of interactions as necessary.

I don't think changing the initiative method really fixes the communications issues since in the end, everyone's actions are resolved in order (unless you switch to a system with simultaneous resolution) and as a result the position of both players and opponents won't be known for a specific player until their turn starts - so they won't know whether haste or fireball will be the better choice until the situation on their turn is clear - so deciding what they will do in advance isn't very effective.

[Keravath]

My best implemented house rule is 1 level of exhaustion when you hit 0 hit points.

To me it is extremely meta-gamey to use a strategy that has you hovering just above unconsciousness with no drawback.

This is one I might consider trying since yo-yo healing is something that does seem counter intuitive. There should be some sort of penalty for hitting zero hit points. However, I do think this will also mean adjusting combat so that it is a bit less challenging so that you don't often face battles with multiple characters hitting zero hit points.

[Hael]

We have a few.
1) you can use an action to do a bonus action event (modulo a few obvious edge cases)
2) if spellcasters cast a spell with an action time in melee range, it provokes a reaction.
3) we’ve altered and changed the weapon tables and damage somewhat to give a few more good options (so 2h greatswords arent the only 2d6 melee item) and ranged weapons get a slight relative damage nerf

[Darzil]

2) if spellcasters cast a spell with an action time in melee range, it provokes a reaction.
Do you add something extra to the Mage-Slayer feat as you are giving that to everyone?

[MaxWilson]

Do you add something extra to the Mage-Slayer feat as you are giving that to everyone?

I have a similar rule, and yes--I let Mage-Slayers disrupt even non-concentration spells, automatically on a weapon hit, as if it were a Counterspell. If you're not a Mage-Slayer you get an attack, and it can disrupt concentrations spells from being cast, but can't disrupt e.g. Dimension Door. Mage Slayers are very sticky.

Or they would be, in theory, if any player ever took the feat, which so far no one has. So far it's a world-building element but not yet an element of actual gameplay at the table.

P.S. Also, if the caster has Warcaster, there is no reaction attack triggered, but I guess I would still let a Mage Slayer have that reaction attack. It's never come up but it makes sense.

[stoutstien]

I have a similar rule, and yes--I let Mage-Slayers disrupt even non-concentration spells, automatically on a weapon hit, as if it were a Counterspell. If you're not a Mage-Slayer you get an attack, and it can disrupt concentrations spells from being cast, but can't disrupt e.g. Dimension Door. Mage Slayers are very sticky.

Or they would be, in theory, if anyone ever took the feat, which so far no one has.
Nice change. I gave the MS feat a dispell on hit effect but I like the concentration breaker vibe

[MaxWilson]

Nice change. I gave the MS feat a dispell on hit effect but I like the concentration breaker vibe

It looks pretty harsh on paper but it's really just the AD&D rule for getting hit while casting--but only when fighting Mage-slayers. And even then, 5E mages have countermeasures that AD&D mages don't, like Shield spells, so they've still got it fairly easy.

[stoutstien]

It looks pretty harsh on paper but it's really just the AD&D rule for getting hit while casting.

Aye. I went for the dispell effect for them have the feeling of shattering magical defenses and one hitting summons and such.
The barbarian shutting down a wizard with polymorph with a punch in the face.

[TheUser]

I'm kind of shocked that people struggle with yo-yo-ing in combat. Whenever I DM I just have enemies observant of the fact that their target is being brought back up and proceed to smash the PC to death the next time they go down with melee auto crits and/or things magic missile the second time around. Even a 5 int beast can understand going for the kill after seeing a critically injured enemy return to fighting form. A player at 0 hitpoints also cannot contest a grapple at that point and can be dragged away from or out of line of sight of their would be healer...Then again I have a knack for employing overtly tactical foes that employ cover, readied actions, traps and even attempt to garrote or grapple at the mouths of casters to prevent their verbal components.

I'm a cruel bastard but my players seem to enjoy the challenge.

It's a bit more merciless but ressurrection spells exists for a reason... And I don't have to bend over backwards coming up with weird exhaustion or gritty realism "meat" rules...

[SociopathFriend]

Personally I insist Sleight of Hand and Stealth are both needed to pickpocket.

Sleight of Hand to successfully remove the object and Stealth to evade being noticed.

Fail the Sleight but pass the Stealth and the mark won't realize you failed.
Pass the Sleight but fail the Stealth and the mark won't notice the theft immediately but will recall your presence or even see you running off with the goods.

This is pretty much just making the Rogue's job more tedious because I swear every single Rogue PC I game with steals from other PCs because, "It's my character".

[Demonslayer666]

Isn't adding the know stipulation of exhaustion equally metagaming as knowing zero has no such rider? I'm not saying it's a bad rule to add but it doesn't really have anything to do with the metagame. Meta-gamy in that the players are cheesing the game system and ignoring what their character should do. One would want to be as far away as possible from falling in combat, but the game system allows it to happen because of wonky mechanics.


This is one I might consider trying since yo-yo healing is something that does seem counter intuitive. There should be some sort of penalty for hitting zero hit points. However, I do think this will also mean adjusting combat so that it is a bit less challenging so that you don't often face battles with multiple characters hitting zero hit points.Exhaustion is not that big of a hit until you hit level 3. What you have to watch out for is keeping too much pressure on and not letting them long rest off the exhaustion.


I'm kind of shocked that people struggle with yo-yo-ing in combat. Whenever I DM I just have enemies observant of the fact that their target is being brought back up and proceed to smash the PC to death the next time they go down with melee auto crits and/or things magic missile the second time around. Even a 5 int beast can understand going for the kill after seeing a critically injured enemy return to fighting form. A player at 0 hitpoints also cannot contest a grapple at that point and can be dragged away from or out of line of sight of their would be healer...Then again I have a knack for employing overtly tactical foes that employ cover, readied actions, traps and even attempt to garrote or grapple at the mouths of casters to prevent their verbal components.

I'm a cruel bastard but my players seem to enjoy the challenge.

It's a bit more merciless but ressurrection spells exists for a reason... And I don't have to bend over backwards coming up with weird exhaustion or gritty realism "meat" rules...My biggest problem with it is the strategy that evolves from it. Waiting to heal until they drop is silly. If you are badly wounded, that's when you need healing, not after you collapse. It is too simplified in 5th.

Yours accomplishes that same goal, but only with some creatures. My change has it apply to all combats, regardless of creatures actions after someone drops.

[stoutstien]

Meta-gamy in that the players are cheesing the game system and ignoring what their character should do. One would want to be as far away as possible from falling in combat, but the game system allows it to happen because of wonky mechanics.

Realistically, the characters should try to stay as far away from combat as possible but that just not DnD.

Players are going to do this regardless of how much you shift the bubble.
If anything, this promotes rocket tag strategies and avoidance rather than players healing before zero and mitigation. If I heal them now and they fall again that's two levels of exhaustion but if I wait until the threat is dealt with it's only one. especially since the component cost for reviving and greater restoration is only 200 gold and a cheaper slot to boot . The fallen player soaking up attacks is still a net win for the party.

saying that the players ignoring what the character would do is bad/wrong/no fun but if the player purposely chooses a less logical path within the game rules and don't receive any rewards you can't really blame them for corpse tanking. if you want players to be more proactive with recovery you should probably reward being proactive with recovery rather than add a punishment to an already bad situation with a player in death saves. Israel preschool and all that.

[MaxWilson]

Yours accomplishes that same goal, but only with some creatures. My change has it apply to all combats, regardless of creatures actions after someone drops.

But giving exhausting on dropping to 0 HP also makes healing worse than not being healed in many cases, because it can double how many levels of exhaustion you get.

I prefer to simply track HP into the negatives instead of stopping at 0 HP. (Actually I track damage instead, for monsters, with death occurring when damage = HP x 2, but if a player wants to count HP downwards instead I'm not going to stop them.) Failed death save = take damage equal to 20% of your HP, rounded up. Successful save = stable until damaged again. This plus no short rest healing (without a bard) lets me use wounded monsters in adventuring scenarios.

[Pex]

I find dropping to below 0 gives exhaustion to be a terrible house rule. No matter what players do someone will drop eventually. It's how the game works. Players can be perfect in tactics, but dice luck interferes. Players can also make mistakes, honest mistakes of simply guessing wrong that results in someone dropping. If this happens in the first combat of the day you're at disadvantage for all ability checks for the rest of the day. That's way too harsh. It only gets worse if you drop a second time in the second combat, for which you rolled with disadvantage on initiative.

I'm not bothered by the pop-up healing. For those who are, I am not convinced applying exhaustion is the solution.

[JonBeowulf]

I find dropping to below 0 gives exhaustion to be a terrible house rule. No matter what players do someone will drop eventually. It's how the game works. Players can be perfect in tactics, but dice luck interferes. Players can also make mistakes, honest mistakes of simply guessing wrong that results in someone dropping. If this happens in the first combat of the day you're at disadvantage for all ability checks for the rest of the day.

I was on board with the original idea, but you've got a fair point, Pex. I'm shifting my house rule to apply a level of exhaustion on all drops to 0 after the first. This will reset after the encounter.

After all, one drop does not yo-yo healing make.

[Minice]

I'd like to have 4th edition crafting rules as an option.

Crafting is the same as buying for costs. can make anything you know how to make in an hour, and can switch the magic from that +1 longsword to a weapon you can actually use, or resize armor. and disenchant magic that no one wants for residuum.

Or just get better/faster at crafting as you get stronger. why can a 5th level wiz make a fireball scroll in a week, but the level 20 wiz can't do it any faster or better. i have time magic at that point, couldn't that help somehow?

[Dienekes]

I find dropping to below 0 gives exhaustion to be a terrible house rule. No matter what players do someone will drop eventually. It's how the game works. Players can be perfect in tactics, but dice luck interferes. Players can also make mistakes, honest mistakes of simply guessing wrong that results in someone dropping. If this happens in the first combat of the day you're at disadvantage for all ability checks for the rest of the day. That's way too harsh. It only gets worse if you drop a second time in the second combat, for which you rolled with disadvantage on initiative.

I'm not bothered by the pop-up healing. For those who are, I am not convinced applying exhaustion is the solution.

It works fairly well for my game. Though I admit, I play a few combat per day high danger in combat game where the players are expected to have a decent plan of attack or they will die. And one person going down and getting exhaustion is usually either seen as a sign that their plan was bad and they may need to retreat, or that it's the final push to finish the encounter. Depending on the situation of course.

Or, essentially, it works for me not using the system as it was intended to be used.

[MrStabby]

I find dropping to below 0 gives exhaustion to be a terrible house rule. No matter what players do someone will drop eventually. It's how the game works. Players can be perfect in tactics, but dice luck interferes. Players can also make mistakes, honest mistakes of simply guessing wrong that results in someone dropping. If this happens in the first combat of the day you're at disadvantage for all ability checks for the rest of the day. That's way too harsh. It only gets worse if you drop a second time in the second combat, for which you rolled with disadvantage on initiative.

I'm not bothered by the pop-up healing. For those who are, I am not convinced applying exhaustion is the solution.

Its a reasonable point. I am not sure I agree (having never used this seemingly popular house rule I don't have a lot of data here) though - I am on the fence.


One issue I have with healing isn't so much the popup aspect, but more the healing being often irrelevant. Healing doesn't do anything unless it makes the difference between 0 and >0 HP, barring some early level instant death critical hits. Being a healer is therefore something that feels like a waste of time most fights, unless most fights are sufficiently deadly that you actually expect people to drop to 0 HP... which places its own burden on balance.

I would be more tempted by something like: you experience the effects of two levels of exhaustion whilst under half HP, as an incentive to keep the team healthy. It means you can keep a bit more tension in fights as a death spiral is a bit more of a possibility and being a healer has a bit more drama/spotlight to it as it feels like making a difference a bit more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its a reasonable point. I am not sure I agree (having never used this seemingly popular house rule I don't have a lot of data here) though - I am on the fence.


One issue I have with healing isn't so much the popup aspect, but more the healing being often irrelevant. Healing doesn't do anything unless it makes the difference between 0 and >0 HP, barring some early level instant death critical hits. Being a healer is therefore something that feels like a waste of time most fights, unless most fights are sufficiently deadly that you actually expect people to drop to 0 HP... which places its own burden on balance.

I would be more tempted by something like: you experience the effects of two levels of exhaustion whilst under half HP, as an incentive to keep the team healthy. It means you can keep a bit more tension in fights as a death spiral is a bit more of a possibility and being a healer has a bit more drama/spotlight to it as it feels like making a difference a bit more.

That's not a possibility of a death spiral, that's a guaranteed death spiral--it's pretty easy for any significant monster to do 50% of your HP in a single round. Plus it just moves the "yo-yo" threshold from 0 HP to 50% HP.

Basically, that guarantees that alpha strikes are the only working option. You either alpha strike and have a 5 min working day or you die. It also turns the frenzy barbarian into even more of a chump--now as soon as he's under half health he's basically useless and that much closer to killing himself with his own ability.

[MrStabby]

That's not a possibility of a death spiral, that's a guaranteed death spiral--it's pretty easy for any significant monster to do 50% of your HP in a single round. Plus it just moves the "yo-yo" threshold from 0 HP to 50% HP.

Basically, that guarantees that alpha strikes are the only working option. You either alpha strike and have a 5 min working day or you die. It also turns the frenzy barbarian into even more of a chump--now as soon as he's under half health he's basically useless and that much closer to killing himself with his own ability.

I am not so worried about the frenzied barbarian as going from 0 people want to play the class to 0 people want to play the class isn't really a big change.

The death spiral thing would be within the context of making fights easier - it wouldn't just be ploughing ahead with hard encounters whilst sticking this massive penalty on the party. That said, I am still unsure where the optimum point of balance would lie (if at all). Likewise with the alpha strike thing - there is an incentive, but my natural style is to run a lot of defensive abilities anyway which somewhat mitigates. I won't deny that there are a number of challenges to getting this to work.

[MaxWilson]

That's not a possibility of a death spiral, that's a guaranteed death spiral--it's pretty easy for any significant monster to do 50% of your HP in a single round. Plus it just moves the "yo-yo" threshold from 0 HP to 50% HP.

Basically, that guarantees that alpha strikes are the only working option. You either alpha strike and have a 5 min working day or you die.

This doesn't happen. All it really does is shift the game more towards a Combat As War playstyle with an emphasis on pre-combat preparation where even rolling a saving throw or letting a non-mook monster target you with a non-disadvantaged attack roll is a sign that you've failed to some extent, either in your recon/intel or in your ally recruitment (social aspects of the game) or in your tactical movement or actions in combat. Will it happen anyway? Yes, failure is inevitable when you're being challenged, but you'll always be critically examining your own actions to see how you could have done it better and avoided getting targeted.

Nor does it create a "yo yo" effect at 50% HP because the yo-yo incentive is created by making HP never drop below zero (so healing before zero is "wasted"), whereas in this case healing before you hit 50% is NOT wasted in that sense (you are going to need to heal that damage eventually anyway) although you could "waste" healing if the healing ability is bigger than the wound.

I haven't run the "exhaustion when under 50% HP" variant but I run Combat As War preferentially both as a DM and a player already, and this rule would change basically nothing about my approach to the game (as opposed to tracking negative HP), so I feel qualified to say: this alpha strike bias you're conjecturing does not in fact get created. In both cases you just wind up playing characters who dislike and consciously avoid taking damage... just like real human beings do. It's a better game AND better roleplaying than an eagerness to "spend your HP" every long rest.

[Pex]

This doesn't happen. All it really does is shift the game more towards a Combat As War playstyle with an emphasis on pre-combat preparation where even rolling a saving throw or letting a non-mook monster target you with a non-disadvantaged attack roll is a sign that you've failed to some extent, either in your recon/intel or in your ally recruitment (social aspects of the game) or in your tactical movement or actions in combat. Will it happen anyway? Yes, failure is inevitable when you're being challenged, but you'll always be critically examining your own actions to see how you could have done it better and avoided getting targeted.

Nor does it create a "yo yo" effect at 50% HP because the yo-yo incentive is created by making HP never drop below zero (so healing before zero is "wasted"), whereas in this case healing before you hit 50% is NOT wasted in that sense (you are going to need to heal that damage eventually anyway) although you could "waste" healing if the healing ability is bigger than the wound.

I haven't run the "exhaustion when under 50% HP" variant but I run Combat As War preferentially both as a DM and a player already, and this rule would change basically nothing about my approach to the game (as opposed to tracking negative HP), so I feel qualified to say: this alpha strike bias you're conjecturing does not in fact get created. In both cases you just wind up playing characters who dislike and consciously avoid taking damage... just like real human beings do. It's a better game AND better roleplaying than an eagerness to "spend your HP" every long rest.

But then D&D is not the proper game for this. It's all fine and dandy to avoid combat where possible and strategic in game play, but ultimately an intrinsic part of the game is combat. Why be a warrior if you never get to swing your weapon? Why be a spellcaster if you never get to cast a spell? Why be a rogue if you never get to sneak attack? Groups have all roleplay no one rolls a die game sessions a lot. Those are fun, but that's not all players want to do when playing D&D. Avoiding combat is not the point. If combat is always to be the last resort and when it does happen you want it over in two rounds at most so no one suffers penalties for who knows how long, D&D is not that game. I know. There's no One True Way to play D&D, but the game system encourages itself.

[MaxWilson]

But then D&D is not the proper game for this. It's all fine and dandy to avoid combat where possible and strategic in game play, but ultimately an intrinsic part of the game is combat. Why be a warrior if you never get to swing your weapon? Why be a spellcaster if you never get to cast a spell? Why be a rogue if you never get to sneak attack? Groups have all roleplay no one rolls a die game sessions a lot. Those are fun, but that's not all players want to do when playing D&D. Avoiding combat is not the point. If combat is always to be the last resort and when it does happen you want it over in two rounds at most so no one suffers penalties for who knows how long, D&D is not that game. I know. There's no One True Way to play D&D, but the game system encourages itself.

5E is an absolutely terrific system for this playstyle because it's so abusable, especially in combat. E.g. you can shoot your little bow from behind a wall of conjured Shepherd Druid animal meat shields, or you can swing your sword and then get way out of range thanks to being a Mobile Tabaxi. It's not a failure if you Fireball a bunch of orcs or shadows, it's just a failure (of Pass Without Trace or positioning or total cover or the PC who was supposed to lead away a bunch of the orcs on a wild goose chase) if they get to attack you BACK without disadvantage.

It's not about avoiding combat, it's about avoiding "fair fights" where you don't have an advantage.

And alpha strikes have their place but are not the only way to do things. Creating some partial/total cover with Mold Earth can be more powerful than blowing spell slots upcasting spells into alpha strikes.

Look at for example Dork_Forge's solution to this tactical challenge to see how powerful recon and intel can be: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623150-Tactical-Challenge-5-10th-level-party-of-four-in-a-subterranean-deadly-fight

Go in without recon/intel and you're likely to get murdered, but choose the right strategy (which isn't necessarily an alpha strike) and it becomes easy.

[ff7hero]

In both cases you just wind up playing characters who dislike and consciously avoid taking damage... just like real human beings do. It's a better game AND better roleplaying than an eagerness to "spend your HP" every long rest.

If my character disliked and wanted to consciously avoid taking damage they can live a comfortable life abusing the downtime rules to support themselves. When I play DnD, I don't want to play a game about being a "real human being" I want to be a superhero.

[MaxWilson]

If my character disliked and wanted to consciously avoid taking damage they can live a comfortable life abusing the downtime rules to support themselves. When I play DnD, I don't want to play a game about being a "real human being" I want to be a superhero.

But clearly not a Superman-style superhero (who laughs at damage) or a Flash-style superhero (who isn't there for damage), just a Hulk or Wolverine-style superhero, right?

[JonBeowulf]

... just a Hulk or Wolverine-style superhero, right?

That's me almost every time... but I don't remember ever playing in one of your games.

[Sception]

My favorite house rule is for mounted combat - Mounts and riders share the same turn and also the same action pool. Unlike the sage advice version of mounted combat, where mount and rider have separate consecutive turns, this lets a mounted character move before their action, after their action, or split movement before and after their action, and can change that decision round to round, just like a normal character. However, they also don't get free disengage or dash actions from their mounts turns while still acting normally on their own. I also have the rider share the mounts space. Yes, this does make auras and self targeted bursts larger while mounted, but mounted combat is cool so I'm fine encouraging it, and the alternative of having to track an individual space for the rider in the corner of their mount feels awkward and gamey.

[JonBeowulf]

Here's what we did...

Controlled Mount:
- Shares the character's initiative spot
- Fully controlled by the player
- Character exists within the mount's space (typically centered, but wherever it makes the most sense)
- Only the player or the mount take an action, but they have their own reactions and bonus actions
- If the character has multiple attacks, the player may have the mount make one of them

Uncontrolled Mount:
- Has its own initiative spot
- Fully controlled by the DM
- Character exists wherever it makes the most sense
- Has its own action, reaction, and bonus action (if it somehow gets one)

I also added to the Mounted Combatant feat:
- You can mount and dismount a creature trained to be a mount as an object interaction

[Pex]

A very common house rule I've experienced came by accident because I don't think anyone knew the actual rule: you get back all HD spent on healing on a long rest. Only one DM I've played with knew the actual rule but implemented this house rule on purpose. I did it for my own game. This does not break the game. It helped the game. Long rest based characters want short rests for the healing. It also puts less pressure on those who do the healing. They're still willing and like to cast spells or use other healing resources, but players healing themselves facilitates no one needs to be the healbot.

[Demonslayer666]

Realistically, the characters should try to stay as far away from combat as possible but that just not DnD.

Players are going to do this regardless of how much you shift the bubble.
If anything, this promotes rocket tag strategies and avoidance rather than players healing before zero and mitigation. If I heal them now and they fall again that's two levels of exhaustion but if I wait until the threat is dealt with it's only one. especially since the component cost for reviving and greater restoration is only 200 gold and a cheaper slot to boot . The fallen player soaking up attacks is still a net win for the party.

saying that the players ignoring what the character would do is bad/wrong/no fun but if the player purposely chooses a less logical path within the game rules and don't receive any rewards you can't really blame them for corpse tanking. if you want players to be more proactive with recovery you should probably reward being proactive with recovery rather than add a punishment to an already bad situation with a player in death saves. Israel preschool and all that.That is certainly not D&D, I agree. Right, the logical path is counter intuitive, and I dislike how the rules handle it. I want to discourage that tactic, and negative impacts are a valid choice. It can still be used, but it is costly. It's simple and has accomplished what I was after.


But giving exhausting on dropping to 0 HP also makes healing worse than not being healed in many cases, because it can double how many levels of exhaustion you get.

I prefer to simply track HP into the negatives instead of stopping at 0 HP. (Actually I track damage instead, for monsters, with death occurring when damage = HP x 2, but if a player wants to count HP downwards instead I'm not going to stop them.) Failed death save = take damage equal to 20% of your HP, rounded up. Successful save = stable until damaged again. This plus no short rest healing (without a bard) lets me use wounded monsters in adventuring scenarios.Right, it's not the best tactic to pop-up heal someone. That's exactly what I was trying to accomplish. I like negative HP as well, but I also wanted to keep it simple. Shouldn't a failed death save cost 33% since 3 equals dead?


I find dropping to below 0 gives exhaustion to be a terrible house rule. No matter what players do someone will drop eventually. It's how the game works. Players can be perfect in tactics, but dice luck interferes. Players can also make mistakes, honest mistakes of simply guessing wrong that results in someone dropping. If this happens in the first combat of the day you're at disadvantage for all ability checks for the rest of the day. That's way too harsh. It only gets worse if you drop a second time in the second combat, for which you rolled with disadvantage on initiative.

I'm not bothered by the pop-up healing. For those who are, I am not convinced applying exhaustion is the solution.It would only be terrible if you were dropped often and didn't get healed to prevent it, and/or the DM kept preventing you from long resting/heals. 17 sessions so far with this rule and it has not been an issue, so it seems to be a good solution for us. Instead of letting players drop, they get healed beforehand to avoid it, which I like, and it makes sense. Yes, it still happens, but less frequently, and never on purpose any more. No one has complained about it, but we are all old-school players that played with negative HP before, so that may be a factor. I just think about using pop-up healing as a tactic for fighting and I cringe. Letting yourself get knocked out because it's efficient on the healer is so bass-ackwards.

If pop-up healing works for you, knock yourself out. :smallcool:

[stoutstien]

Pop-up healing is a symptom of the poorly executed initiative system rather than a problem in it's own right. Introducing any form of uncertainty to the order round to round tends to nip it and also prevents players zoning after their turn.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know I'm an outlier as far as experiences, but pop-up healing has never been a problem for me. People heal early and often, both in-combat and out. And when they bring people up from 0 HP (which certainly happens), they don't generally rely on just a 1st level Healing Word to do so.

I think it's because, for my players, being at 0 HP isn't fun, because missing a turn isn't fun. It happens, often out of their control (see the raging barbarian-esque NPC who hit 2 max-damage greataxe hits on a 4th level paladin and dropped her to basically 0 from full, despite good AC). Stacking extra penalties on top of that doesn't fit our group.

--------

One change I have made for this last group and that I think I will continue is "named NPCs get death saves by default."

[TheUser]

One change I have made for this last group and that I think I will continue is "named NPCs get death saves by default."

100% stealing this

[PhoenixPhyre]

100% stealing this

I actually had a case where an NPC spent his actions (and ate some AOs) to heal his partner (the barbarian I mentioned). Because that was totally in his character. And so far it's worked out very well. I recommend it.

[micahaphone]

I didn't play 4E (well a single session once) but I love houserules where weapon/armor enchantments can be transferred from one thing to another. Takes a few hours and x amount of gold to do so, but it's widely available.

[MaxWilson]

Right, it's not the best tactic to pop-up heal someone. That's exactly what I was trying to accomplish. I like negative HP as well, but I also wanted to keep it simple. Shouldn't a failed death save cost 33% since 3 equals dead?

No, I made it 20% (and only one success needed to stabilize) so that is you were barely below zero (-1 out of 50) you were almost guaranteed to survive. If you're heavily wounded already (-40 out of 50) a single failure will kill you, but I didn't want that to happen often. I wanted finer granularity for severity of wounds, partly for my own sake as a DM so that e.g. "you find a stone giant at the base of a cliff, wounded nigh unto death" could be a thing, followed by a riddle or a clue or something. (I allow dying creatures to retain enough consciousness to speak, sometimes, although not to act or avoid critical hits.)