Opinions on Kryx's houserules?

[Sans.]

How does everyone feel about MiddleFingerOfVecna Kryx's houserules? I tried to look through it, but it's beyond my scope.

[Sariel Vailo]

I actually love quite a bit of them. Almost everyone of them useful especially if you have a weirdo who wants to be a lich i always make archfey drow or rather try to anyway.if its an issue of balance they dont seem to be out of balance especially with many of the members being from here.submortemer draco knight anx ninjaprawn to name a few heyyyyyyy guys.

[Kryx]

That's not MFoV's houserules. Those are mine.

[lunaticfringe]

TL/DR. I'm sure there is some good stuff in there but if someone linked a 157 page Homebrew file and told me we using these rules I'd politely decline.

[Sans.]

... Fail. I'm an idiot.

[Tetrasodium]

TL/DR. I'm sure there is some good stuff in there but if someone linked a 157 page Homebrew file and told me we using these rules I'd politely decline.

Pretty much this yea. Out of curiosity, I started scrolling and started noticing insane things like "change log", If your house rules are so extensive that you need a change log, you've grown well beyond house rules. I have a pretty extensive & very skimmable file I made & give to players while telling them they can ignore all the fluff about cities unless they are curious about the cities in a particular region, but I'm still using 5e rules.
the thing this thread is asking about is more like a different game & I don't know if I care enough to read through the rules for some other system.

[Easy_Lee]

Kryx's houserules are more of a rewrite of the system. Their math is more balanced than the base system. But you absolutely need player buy-in to use them, because they are extensive.

[Haldir]

Looks like he wanted to have a ruling for every situation, which is explicitly what 5e was trying not to do. Too big, too specific. Looks like a lot of work for very little payoff. But hey, if it works for his table, whatever.

[Kryx]

157 page Homebrew file

It started as a few reworks and then became easier to present all the available options in one place instead of having the players look in several different books and tens of different UA articles. Many good options were overlooked due to obscurity.

Looks like he wanted to have a ruling for every situation, which is explicitly what 5e was trying not to do.

My houserules do not contain rulings. I'm unsure what you're referring to.

[lunaticfringe]

It started as a few reworks and then became easier to present all the available options in one place instead of having the players look in several different books and tens of different UA articles. Many good options were overlooked due to obscurity.


My houserules do not contain rulings. I'm unsure what you're referring to.

Ok, but your house rules are literally SCAG length. That's a formidable document of presumably just mechanics. If your players appreciate it you should be pleased, that's all that really matters. I don't know you and will probably never game with you so I'm not keen on the time investment. Nothing personal. I'm m old and set in my ways and have disliked more internet homebrew then I have liked.

Also you removed Battlerager and I actually enjoy playing that Archetype as is so blah.

[Kryx]

Ok, but your house rules are literally SCAG length. That's a formidable document of presumably just mechanics.

It's not additional information. It's in place of for the most part. 135 of those pages are classes, only 3 of which are reworks. The rest is just to have every option in one document.
I don't expect everyone to want to use my houserules, but I'd appreciate it if they weren't purposefully misrepresented.

[Laserlight]

We use a fair amount of it

[Hypersmith]

I like a lot of them, but using too many feels like I'm leaning more to 3.5 than 5e. Quality wise, pretty great, like most of Kryx stuff. Just not for everyone, and not quite for me.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I dig a lot of what you did there. It provides some guidance on what I'm trying to do right now for my own game.

I like the idea of changing feats around from mechanical bonuses and fluffy bonuses.

I like the changes to the Alert feat, because that's busted and silly.

I like the idea behind specific skill checks for grappling and other strength and dexterity maneuvers, but also am unsure with how I would want to approach it myself.

Making meta-magic be feat focused seems like a good choice, and I like that.

Increasing Bow range seems a little strong. I think their might be better nuance in there then by increasing the range.

Lots of work, and something I am trying to get to myself as I build a 5e campaign setting and my own houserules.

Cool stuff man.

[Kryx]

Thanks for the feedback guys. It's great to hear that others use and enjoy what I have created.

Also feel free to provide specific feedback if something can be more clearly presented, if the format can be improved, or if mechanics should change. I'm always looking to improve it so feel free to share your thoughts. (the easiest way for me to manage specific feedback is on my issue tracker which is linked at the bottom of every page).

[Zilong]

I tried your summoner conversion in a one shot. I liked the feel, but it definitely felt a bit overpowered at the level we were at (5th).

[Mjolnirbear]

I've used them and I like them.

For feats, I stayed with the current raw and only 's few changes. I like the split feats, but way too much work and keeping track. I think it would have been better in using Kryx-like feats in the original game but I have to evaluate if it's worth changing the whole structure. To me, no. But many of the changes to feats, such as - 5/+10 feats, I still adopted.

The traits I like a lot. I used his and DiBastet's ribbons/traits. They are completely optional and free to use.

I also cherry picked a few rules here and there. I skipped metamagic feats because sorcerers get enough of a bad deal.

My houserules document is also pretty huge... But very little of it is actual new rules. I reprinted UA that I was permitting and Volos monsters I wanted in so we could avoid always downloading the UA when we needed to look something up. I also needed room for a bit of lore so players would know, for instance, House Jorasco is a halfling house and Cannith owns all the tinker shops and what dragonshards are. Of actual changes there are very few.

[treecko]

I like what I see, but I don't think I could ever get players to play whats essentially dnd 5.5.

Stuff I like: Fighting stances and weapons add a lot more options for martial characters.
Given this is the guy know for his dpr spreadsheets, I'm going to assume the math works out.
Most of the additions- won't list everything.

Things I don't like: I know 3.5 had metamagic for everyone, but I do like 5e's sorc, and enjoy how they have exclusive access to them.
Monk loses stunning strike- I don't really like how core it is on monk right now, but I don't see what they are really getting in return. Perhaps I'd like it better if I understood the gains they got.
Druid is untouched? I personally think it needs some sort of rework.

[Zman]

I think Kryx put in a ton of effort and achieves quite good balance, but IMO the changes are too big and complicated and the end result varies too far from what most people would comfortably call 5e which makes implementation incredibly difficult. Of course given that opinion I'm more inclined to use my fixes as I feel they are easier to use and are more comfortably 5e where Kryx creates a more balanced effectively new edition.
Me and Kryx agree on quite a bit, but differ on how we approach solving those problems.

[Terra Reveene]

Druid is untouched? I personally think it needs some sort of rework.

He mentioned that he didn't like Druid and is working on a Shaman class that'll have most of what the Druid does as a subclass or something like that.

I'm not sure I like it myself, I do want a shaman and have been trying to find a good one myself, but I don't think it should replace the current Druid.

I want to remember him mentioning that it's difficult to make subclasses for Druid or something like that. Ask him if you want to know for sure, I'm just some other random guy on the internet.

[Kryx]

He mentioned that he didn't like Druid and is working on a Shaman class that'll have most of what the Druid does as a subclass or something like that.

I'm not sure I like it myself, I do want a shaman and have been trying to find a good one myself, but I don't think it should replace the current Druid.

I want to remember him mentioning that it's difficult to make subclasses for Druid or something like that. Ask him if you want to know for sure, I'm just some other random guy on the internet.

I worked out a shaman, got about 70% complete, but I'm not so happy with the final touches so it has stalled for a few months now.

I'm likely going to work on a druid rework without wildshape in the base class. https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com...thout?sort=top has some good ideas for a reworked druid which I think I'll use as a rough guide of the possible subclasses.

First I'm going to touch up ranger and warlock to have Hunter's Mark and Hex as class features when I'm back from vacation.

I'm also working on a magus half caster (int) which progressed pretty well.

We'll see which I'm more inclined to work on.

[Tetrasodium]

I worked out a shaman, got about 70% complete, but I'm not so happy with the final touches so it has stalled for a few months now.

I'm likely going to work on a druid rework without wildshape in the base class. https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com...thout?sort=top has some good ideas for a reworked druid which I think I'll use as a rough guide of the possible subclasses.

First I'm going to touch up ranger and warlock to have Hunter's Mark and Hex as class features when I'm back from vacation.

I'm also working on a magus half caster (int) which progressed pretty well.

We'll see which I'm more inclined to work on.

Druid should probably have been done as a half caster that gains extra attacks with moon druid capabilities & without the stupid metal armor thing when they could just have easily said "armor & barding are two different types of equipment, beasts need barding" to avoid the whole problem in the first place while land should have been the pointless nature cleric

[Kryx]

Druid should probably have been done as a half caster that gains extra attacks with moon druid capabilities

If you view wild shape as a core feature of all Druids.

I've never been a huge fan of the idea of all druids being master shapers - that is one subclass imo.

Archetypes I'd like to see, each of which would fill the void of Wildshape with something different:

• Companions. I wouldn't mind for Rangers and Druids to share the companion mechanic. It's flavorful for both, and there could be differences between the features each companion gets to prevent complete overlap. Rangers are oriented towards martial combat, while Druids are oriented towards magic; their respective companions can reflect that.
• Summoning. Wizard touches on this, but there's plenty of room to explore still. These Druids tap into the life force of the world to summon bestial spirits. Similar to the Shepherd circle found in UA, but with a more intense focus and feel of a Shaman (but no totems).
• Feral Shapeshifting. Instead of Wildshape, this archetype could focus on amplifying Alter Self, Barkskin, Enchance Ability, Polymorph, and other self changing/buffing spells. It could also incorporate some of those spells' affects into independent archetype features, such as unarmored defense and innate natural weapons.
• Elementalist. A Druid that focuses on the elements themselves. Land Druid comes close to this, however only for 1 chosen element; it would need some tweaking to properly differentiate it. Land Druid is a more utility oriented archetype about connection to the land, be it exploration, plants, etc. Maybe Land druid could focus on plant and terraforming spells. Elementalist is more about elemental DPS.
• Herbalist. A healing archetype revolving around healing remedies and the divine aspect of Druidic magic. Encourages the use of the innate herablism kit proficiency the base Druid already has. 5e would need better crafting rules, but the archetype could reduce cost/time it takes to make potions in a fashion Wizard does for scribing spells of a certain school. Other benefits could pertain to healing spells and such.
• Pestilence. Obviously a darker archetype which would deal with themes pertaining to 3 horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, and death. Think of a Witch Doctor. Deals with all kinds of negative superstition, bad omens, insects, and plagues.

Those ideas are the quintessential druid ideas. Forcing shape shifting on to all of them doesn't make sense imo. The method of using spell slots to power shape changing is the one I've considered using many times and the one I'd heavily favor.

[TheUser]

I'm not sure what his goal was with the sorcerer....taking away their iconic feature (metamagic) and making them feats just seems like he resents that they alone get them and that giving them to other arcane casters somehow -doesn't- break the game...it does. Metamagic is balanced around the sorcerer list and giving it to wizards who don't multi-class is not well thought out.

Eschew materials; woopdy doo! Or you can just have an arcane focus (since it accomplishes what eschew materials does...). Sorcerer base class is just a wizard without the sweet features or expanded spell list. All the power has been shifted away from the base class and into the archetypes.

There are some interesting rules sprinkled in there; stacking dis/advantage with the +/- 2 or 4 was a nice thought. But others subclasses I wouldn't touch. Reverting to 4.0 combination saves is something that would be an interesting way to make saves higher for players.

In short, if someone wanted to use this I'd ask them why? If they wanted metamagic without the confines of the sorcerer spell list I'd tell them to get real.

[Ravinsild]

I don't have much of an opinion. I don't even think D&D is the right system for me in general. I tend to like very specialized concepts like "Fire Mage" or something, where they focus on a very particular shtick and I dislike the general way most guides optimize casters. Also I really, really like gishes and most gishes don't give me the blaster/warrior feel, it's more like "then i use magic to make me hit harder or be harder to hit" rather than "i cut one guy in half with my sword and with my other launch a firebeam that incinerates another guy" feeling. Nothing really seems to super particularly support these styles of play though.

90% of full caster builds are "make sure to get all the utility spells and make sure to have the most wide range of spells possible" than straight "I only use fire spells and I only use them offensively" like, say, a "Red Burn Deck" from MTG or something. Also gishes don't really act like I want them to. Maybe I've just played video games too much, especially MMOs, where everything is highly specialized and niche and you're either "Tank/DPS/Healer" instead of "general caster" so it's affected how I think about classes or something.

[Kryx]

I don't have much of an opinion.

Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?


@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

[Ravinsild]

Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?


@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

Because your approach also doesn't have specialist classes in the way I like :P But for what they are, objectively, they're very good.

Edit: As a side not I like your Two-Weapon Fighting fix and the sort of "Titan's Grip"-esque feeling you gave Barbarians. Very hype if that were official.

[Tetrasodium]

If you view wild shape as a core feature of all Druids.

I've never been a huge fan of the idea of all druids being master shapers - that is one subclass imo.


Those ideas are the quintessential druid ideas. Forcing shape shifting on to all of them doesn't make sense imo. The method of using spell slots to power shape changing is the one I've considered using many times and the one I'd heavily favor.

I agree that there should be viable caster options for druids, but land druid is not it & is more of just a strange nature cleric with one hand tied behind their back & moon druid is actually quite good (especially on a kobold) those things that you mention work well for the spellcasting side where land kinda fails, but not the wildshaped side

[Zman]

Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?


@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

Credit where credit is due. Most of our disagreements were about approach and "heavyhandedness", not about the balance of the result. You favored a larger rewrite to achieve very good balance, I more leaned towards easier to implement smaller fixes. It was scope vs effect, great vs better etc.

[guachi]

Most of the changes seem pointlessly fiddly. I've added rules similar to this in my own game, but only a few.

For example, I use d12+d8 for ability checks (but not saves or attack rolls).

I use gaining a level of exhaustion when you fall to zero hp.

And I've modified rest rules a bit from Gritty Realism.

But not 100+ pages of rulings. No way, no how.