Houserules that I'm Afraid to Try

[EggKookoo]

I just want to start off by saying I haven't implemented any of these at my table. I'm tempted, but also afraid to.

No Spell/Turn Limit

A spellcaster can cast any number of spells per turn if she has the actions available. No more "one bonus action spell plus one cantrip that uses your action" stuff. If you want to cast spiritual weapon and cure wounds one right after the other on the same turn, go for it. Sure, this makes casters even more powerful, but who isn't playing some kind of caster these days? And you burn spell slots that much faster.

Recipient of Critical Hit Can Opt for Stun

If you are the recipient of a critical hit, you can opt to avoid the extra damage, but you are stunned until the start of your next turn. I can see my players opting for this from time to time. Note it's the recipient of the attack that chooses, not the attacker. One issue might be if your turn comes up right after your attacker's -- you're basically negating the crit for free. Maybe it could be you're stunned for 1 turn or until the start of your next turn, whichever is later, but that might also get kinda clunky.

Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

It's like a chain reaction. Bob AOs Sue. Tom OAs Bob. Grog OAs Tom. Sue OAs Grog. Fun for everyone! I suppose I'd probably put in some rule that you can't OA the creature that's currently OAing you. But I call this my "reaction sink."

Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

The idea is that whenever a spellcaster completes a long rest, he can set the damage type of any of his known or prepared spells to whatever he wants. Once set, that's the type it does until his next long rest. This one is probably 99% harmless, but then there's that time that Fiery McFire Mage comes across something that's particularly vulnerable to fire damage. Still, about the safest, I think.

Anyway, any other ridiculous ideas out there that might break the game?

[Amnestic]

My views:

No Spell/Turn Limit

Won't affect as much as you think. It'll boost their nova, but if you're actually pushing encounters (either via length or via numbers) then a lot of casters will choose to ignore this. Main boon I see is for clerics who can spirit guardians+spiritual weapon on the same turn to get their "damage" up on turn 1.

It is a buff, to be clear, but not one that breaks anything especially if you're regularly exhausting spellslots.

Recipient of Critical Hit Can Opt for Stun

Stunned is a really debilitating debuff. I'd very rarely choose to be stunned over take an extra set of damage dice from a crit especially if there's more than one enemy on the field.

Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

I...don't like this? I can't really articulate why but I don't. Rubs me the wrong way.

Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

So I don't hate this idea in theory but in practice I think it could use some work.

For one, some damage types (Force, Radiant) are just more broadly applicable compared to others. A radiant fireball is 99.99% of the time better than a fire...fireball.
For two, if the idea is to have thematic caster damage (fire wizard, necrotic druid, lightning sorcerer, etc.) then why let them change on a long rest? Have them pick a damage type for their theme at level 1 and stick to it.

[clash]

No Spell/Turn Limit

Honestly, I always found this rule overly complex and unnecessary anyways. My personal fix had been on a given turn you can cast spell levels equal to your highest spell slot. For example of you can cast 3rd level spells you could cast spiritual weapon and cure wounds on the same turn but not spiritual weapon and aid.

My caution to your rule is high level spell shenanigans with quicken spell. Ie cat sickening radiance and quickened wall of force for example. Not something that can't be done but usually not so easy to do with a single character.


Recipient of Critical Hit Can Opt for Stun

Seems fine. As said above it wouldn't be my first choice since stun allowed free critical hits. I'm assuming you can't take that choice of you're already stunned?


Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

If it's fun for you go for it.


Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

I would restrict what damage types can be swapped. Fire for cold or poison probably fine. Fire for force is less fine.

[KOLE]

My standard disclaimer whenever I’m “critiquing” someone elses table/house rules: I’m not here to be arbiter of anyone’s fun. If it works for your table, awesome! But here’s why I wouldn’t implement them/would maybe not want them if I was at your table:

No Spell/Turn Limit

I dislike this for a couple of reasons. As you said, this is a flat buff to all spellcasters; and honestly, they don’t need it. As mentioned already, Clerics were probably already opening with Spiritual Weapon/Spirit guardians, they’re not burning any more spell slots, just getting their cake quicker. I also dislike how it takes away tactical choices by casters; no longer do they have to think about what big gun they’re dropping this turn, they can have it all right now. Also, Sorcerer Quicken will be insane with this. Sorcerers could use a buff, but this is a lot IMO.

Recipient of Critical Hit Can Opt for Stun

I dislike this for two reasons:
-Critical hits against the party SHOULD be scary and impactful. I’ve had mundane, easy encounters turn hairy quick because a couple of minor beasts rolled well. This is the territory where PC deaths can happen. I don’t celebrate that, I’m not a bloodthirsty DM, but it still needs to be on the table. Crits keep things dangerous, which is exciting them. Easy escapes from them are boring. PCs are hard enough to kill in my experience.
- Even if I wanted this rule, it should last until the END of their next turn. Skipping a turn to negate a crit feels closer to balance, even though I don’t like it.

Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

What does this accomplish? This one really stumps me. I don’t see what this adds to the game?

Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

This is anither big buff. Also, there’s a feat to help that fire mage out. I let sorcerers do this on the fly for a sorcerer point, but only for an equivalent type. I’d allow a spellcaster to research a tweak to an existing spell, especially if its thematic to the character, but I’d adjust damage to match. A radiant fireball would be 6d6, whereas a poison fireball would be 9d6.

[Phhase]

For two, if the idea is to have thematic caster damage (fire wizard, necrotic druid, lightning sorcerer, etc.) then why let them change on a long rest? Have them pick a damage type for their theme at level 1 and stick to it.

Very much this. I really like having element purism themed casters, and 5e is notorious for either saying "oh, here, you can pick any damage type from this list at any time provided X" or "No, you can only have these damage types at these times and can't swap them." I don't particularly like either of those. The latter is too restrictive, and the former dilutes the identity. You could just say "Oh you don't have to use those other damage types", but enclothed cognition really is a thing. I want to be restricted to a single element, with all the benefits and drawbacks that may provide. I want to be the guy who only does sonic damage, not the guy who tries to only use sonic damage for most things, when he can.

[EggKookoo]

No Spell/Turn Limit

Won't affect as much as you think. It'll boost their nova, but if you're actually pushing encounters (either via length or via numbers) then a lot of casters will choose to ignore this. Main boon I see is for clerics who can spirit guardians+spiritual weapon on the same turn to get their "damage" up on turn 1.

It is a buff, to be clear, but not one that breaks anything especially if you're regularly exhausting spellslots.

To be honest, this is one I'm most tempted to try. Maybe I should, with a warning to the players that if it unbalances things we'll go back. My campaign is on a "mid season break" at the moment, but maybe when it resumes...


Recipient of Critical Hit Can Opt for Stun

Stunned is a really debilitating debuff. I'd very rarely choose to be stunned over take an extra set of damage dice from a crit especially if there's more than one enemy on the field.

Really it's the advantage on attacks against you that's the issue. The only other main thing is you lose access to your reaction until your next turn starts, which can be situationally painful. I'm not sure if I'm trying to solve a problem with this or if it's just something that took hold in my brain and I can't shake it. I feel like crits are not underwhelming really, but kind of uninteresting.


Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

I...don't like this? I can't really articulate why but I don't. Rubs me the wrong way.

Well, it's a messy rule, for one thing. Totally disrupts combat. But in a way that might be why it appeals to me. I wish 5e had more "proc" stuff that used your reaction. Special attacks and abilities that trigger on crits, or nat-1s, or dropping someone to 0 HP, or rolling a nat-20 on a save, or whatever.


Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

So I don't hate this idea in theory but in practice I think it could use some work.

For one, some damage types (Force, Radiant) are just more broadly applicable compared to others. A radiant fireball is 99.99% of the time better than a fire...fireball.
For two, if the idea is to have thematic caster damage (fire wizard, necrotic druid, lightning sorcerer, etc.) then why let them change on a long rest? Have them pick a damage type for their theme at level 1 and stick to it.

I get what you mean, but I think I was just thinking of it as a toy to play with. If we're getting all practical with it, then yeah, I'd probably put some structure around it where the caster needs to at least partially commit to a damage type, or a set of them. It feels like something that would work well with different subclasses. It's always been a curiosity to me why, say, a School of Necromancy wizard can't choose to apply necrotic damage to certain spells.

Oh, another one:

Burning Two Hit Dice to Remove One Condition

What it says on the label. If you're charmed, you can spend two of your available Hit Dice to remove it (and only it). I picked two to make it a little more expensive, but I guess it'll just keep getting cheaper as you level. I could counter that by increasing the HD cost but that feels wrong. Maybe you can spend HD on saves made to overcome the effect? That's actually quite a different mechanic than just burning them, but it would incentivize using more dice if you have them.


Seems fine. As said above it wouldn't be my first choice since stun allowed free critical hits. I'm assuming you can't take that choice of you're already stunned?

Wait, being stunned is a free crit? I thought it just gave advantage.

But yeah, effects don't stack so I'd probably rule that you have to take the damage with a follow-up crit.


- Even if I wanted this rule, it should last until the END of their next turn. Skipping a turn to negate a crit feels closer to balance, even though I don’t like it.

I originally considered that, but it felt too punishing.

Again, I haven't used any of these and don't really intend to. Just playing with the ideas mostly in my head. Vaguely considering the spellcasting change, though...

[LudicSavant]

I just want to start off by saying I haven't implemented any of these at my table. I'm tempted, but also afraid to.

No Spell/Turn Limit

A spellcaster can cast any number of spells per turn if she has the actions available. No more "one bonus action spell plus one cantrip that uses your action" stuff. If you want to cast spiritual weapon and cure wounds one right after the other on the same turn, go for it. Sure, this makes casters even more powerful, but who isn't playing some kind of caster these days? And you burn spell slots that much faster.

So the thing is, this rule doesn't necessarily just "make you burn spell slots that much faster." In fact, properly utilized, it will do the opposite. Having that action economy advantage means you can get more done with the same resources, by giving enemies shorter windows to act. This both means that they may have shorter lives (which saves you resources because they're doing less damage or other troublesome things to you), and that they have less opportunities for counterplay (which may make some things hit harder than the sum of their parts).

If you're fine with that, that's up to you, but you should be aware that this will make a skilled caster more resource efficient, not less.

Players often forget that the whole tactical point of a good nova isn't just to show off, it's to actually save resources in the overall scheme of things (since "the enemy gets to do what they wanna do" can in many situations cost you or your party more than "use your rocket launcher ammo").


Making an Opportunity Attack Provokes Opportunity Attacks

It's like a chain reaction. Bob AOs Sue. Tom OAs Bob. Grog OAs Tom. Sue OAs Grog. Fun for everyone! I suppose I'd probably put in some rule that you can't OA the creature that's currently OAing you. But I call this my "reaction sink." What is this houserule meant to accomplish?


Spellcasters Can Set Spell Damage Type

The idea is that whenever a spellcaster completes a long rest, he can set the damage type of any of his known or prepared spells to whatever he wants. Once set, that's the type it does until his next long rest. This one is probably 99% harmless, but then there's that time that Fiery McFire Mage comes across something that's particularly vulnerable to fire damage. Still, about the safest, I think.

Perhaps this should at least be limited to damage type "tiers." Like, you can turn Fire into something comparable like Cold or Lightning, or into something worse like Poison, but not into Force (otherwise, just swapping all your spells to Force is going to be the "default" choice).

That still leaves some extra tidbits to possibly worry about. For example, getting immunity to one element would be sufficient to make you immune to ALL of the party's friendly fire spells, if so inclined.

[EggKookoo]

What is this houserule meant to accomplish?

So while I said I like things that use your reaction, also an issue I see in my games is that my players are afraid to move around much because it invites OAs. It got me thinking about the purpose of an OA, which to my mind is mostly about preventing one character from waltzing through a group of enemies without concern. So I thought, what if OAs were riskier unless you were mostly with a gang of allies and a single enemy was pushing past? Like in a mixed fight with roughly even numbers all within melee range. If OAs were safe when you outnumber your opponents but risky otherwise, it might prompt more movement around the battlefield.

I dunno. Not well thought out, which is why it's on this list.

[EggKookoo]

Sorry about the double post but this is a distinct subject.


No Spell/Turn Limit

Honestly, I always found this rule overly complex and unnecessary anyways. My personal fix had been on a given turn you can cast spell levels equal to your highest spell slot. For example of you can cast 3rd level spells you could cast spiritual weapon and cure wounds on the same turn but not spiritual weapon and aid.

My caution to your rule is high level spell shenanigans with quicken spell. Ie cat sickening radiance and quickened wall of force for example. Not something that can't be done but usually not so easy to do with a single character.

This is interesting. How do you handle cantrips? Can someone cast, say, healing word (BA) and, I dunno, fire bolt (A) on the same turn? I mean I imagine so, I guess I'm asking if it caused any particular problem.

I like this idea, thanks. I'm going to consider it...

[Amnestic]

Really it's the advantage on attacks against you that's the issue. The only other main thing is you lose access to your reaction until your next turn starts, which can be situationally painful. I'm not sure if I'm trying to solve a problem with this or if it's just something that took hold in my brain and I can't shake it. I feel like crits are not underwhelming really, but kind of uninteresting.

Stunned also knocks out your Concentration on spellcasters. Pushing the Concentration save up from DC10 to DC13~ (as an example, sometimes it won't even do that much) from crit damage for instance is *way* more preferable to guaranteed losing your spell.

[Guy Lombard-O]

No Spell/Turn Limit

A spellcaster can cast any number of spells per turn if she has the actions available. No more "one bonus action spell plus one cantrip that uses your action" stuff. If you want to cast spiritual weapon and cure wounds one right after the other on the same turn, go for it. Sure, this makes casters even more powerful, but who isn't playing some kind of caster these days? And you burn spell slots that much faster.

My Trickery Cleric would love this.

Talk about "pop up healing"! Got an unconscious party member? Healing Word then Polymorph all in one turn!

[clash]

Sorry about the double post but this is a distinct subject.

This is interesting. How do you handle cantrips? Can someone cast, say, healing word (BA) and, I dunno, fire bolt (A) on the same turn? I mean I imagine so, I guess I'm asking if it caused any particular problem.

I like this idea, thanks. I'm going to consider it...

Ya, the cantrips have always been allowed with a spell and hasn't caused any issues. I treat it as level 0 for the purposes. I find the limit allows more tactics rather than less. Should I use that big spell or two smaller ones when one has a bonus action?