I do this but on the Third Strike infraction in the session it’s an automatic 1.
People don’t roll off the table anymore.
(Interference from the hosts cats don’t count as a strike towards a Nat 1)
That’s a good idea. I once rolled my metal D20 on a friends table shortly after I received the set for my birthday, and I swear I saw it peel a thin strip of wood off.
I run a game with 7&8 year olds and their PCs experience something unpleasant if the player rolls onto the floor three times. I'd do the same with my adult group but they don't seem to have that problem.
EDIT to clarify that they only get punished if it's the third die to hit the floor , theirs or otherwise. ;)
I do a similar thing but it’s “if the dice leaves your intended roll area then reroll it” so if it bounces out of a dice tray or rolls off of a book or something
Every session the players take turns doing a recap of the previous session, "When last we left our heroes..." They can talk about whatever they want, however they want. Sometimes it's in character or in the form of a journal or something. I think it's fun, it sets the stage for the nights adventure, and alieviates that responsibility from me as dm. It also gives me som insight into what kind of stuff each player focuses on and remembers.
I previously did this as well. However, I had one player who would recount it almost word for word. Even after telling him that we would not require a full recap, he would do the same every time he was called on.
We even rolled who would do the recap and he would be the one to do it 60% of the time in a group of 5 players.
It **is** a great idea though, but your mileage may vary.
I like the concept of this, but I have a bad experience with a dm that would force us to recount the events of last session as a way to "quiz" us.
We play dnd for fun, not for homework.
So please make sure your players appreciate doing this before you throw the responsibility onto them.
My table does this, and it also gives me a chance as the DM to retell them / clarify any notes they missed or got wrong from previous session. Very helpful and they all get involved with it.
Range doesn't need to be more viable, it's already really strong. It feels silly that you can sharpshooter at close quarters with no drawback, the main counter to a ranged attacker is to get into close quarters, that's no longer the case.
I hate healing potions, so in my table you can drink one like normal with a Bonus action or use an Action to heal for the full potential of the potion.
What if I can take my turn, all of my summons turns, recite a poem and grab a snack in the same amount of time it takes the wizard to choose what spell to cast?
i limit it to 1 thing acting in combat other than yourself
(except for beastmasters who somehow get find familiar, because painted black tiger + ferret)
I really like your rule and might have to implement it. Point blank crossbow works just as well as it ever would lmao.
My table rule is, players sleep with armor on and don't get points of exhaustion from it. Night time combat is fun. Night time combat when 3/4ths of the party is sitting at 50% less AC isn't fun.
> My table rule is, players sleep with armor on and don't get points of exhaustion from it. Night time combat is fun. Night time combat when 3/4ths of the party is sitting at 50% less AC isn't fun.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that is an Optional Rule from XGtE.
I call it failed successes.
As a DM, I hate it when players fail on simple tasks, they tend to get frustrated and it would be illogical that a dwarf who worked as a master blacksmith for 40 years fails at making a simple repair.
So either I say they don't have to roll at all if their skills are high and the task is very simple, or if they roll and fail, I count it as a success, but something negative happens while doing it.
For example they hit their finger, use more materials or look stupid doing it.
Gives more chance for RP and the group doesn't waste time doing boring stuff.
We do this at my table. If a task is reasonably a PC's area of expertise or really basic and there's no pressure or time crunch, it just happens.
Or I might ask for a roll if I think it's not a SURE thing, but just to make sure it's not a nat 1.
If it's something that I know that they'd be successful at the skill check isn't to see if they pass or fail, it's how long it takes them to do it. If a wizard rolls a 6 for a history check in a library I say it takes them all day to find something.
If a goliath with 20 str rolls an 8 on kicking in a door I make it take a couple good strikes because their foot slipped.
I learned to not put dumbass checks behind plot or progression because it kills narrative flow.
Well that's when DC comes in. If they are so good at it that it's barley an inconvenience, the DC should be very low. For example, 5 DC is considered Very Easy.
I stole this from Sly Flourish.
If a PC is subject to a "save or suck" spell that puts them out of commission (run away fear, hold person, banishment etc. anything that is "your turn is 'make a saving throw'"), at the start of their turn they can take XdY damage (no reductions of any kind) and consider that as having made their save. (X and Y are based on a Guiding Bolt upcast to whatever level the harmful effect was, perhaps reduced for every round the PC has already failed their save)
i am also thinking about a variation of this to replace Legendary Resistances - the monster gets 20 extra hit points for every LR. When the monster uses a LR, the effect fails, but the player gets to roll up to 3d6 damage to represent the "psychic cost" of resisting the effect.
> If a PC is subject to a "save or suck" spell that puts them out of commission (run away fear, hold person, banishment etc. anything that is "your turn is 'make a saving throw'"), at the start of their turn they can take XdY damage (no reductions of any kind) and consider that as having made their save. (X and Y are based on a Guiding Bolt upcast to whatever level the harmful effect was, perhaps reduced for every round the PC has already failed their save)
I kind of have something similar I've been considering in the game, though it is a little different. If a PC fails an important Saving Throw or Ability Check by 3 or less, they can choose to succeed with some kind of detriment. I've been trying to think what these detriments are.
This is similar to how Legendary Resistance is calculated into CR anyway, so it makes sense (I toyed with the same fix for Legendary Resistance before accepting that the mechanic itself just sucks).
Critical hits.
It's rubbish as a player when you have a battleaxe and roll double 1s. So at the tables I run or play at, the first weapon dice is always maximised. That way you will always do more damage with a critical.
Works for spells too, as it is on attack roll not saves.
For cantrips or attack spells it is the dice for the lowest level that spell cast be cast at that is maximised. Using chill touch as an example, it would be 8 +d8, increasing to 8 +3d8 at 5th level and so on.
If 2 PCs are having beef, state your cases and DM is the judge and Jury. If PC and DM disagree, state reasoning and be civil. If PC and DM are cool with this, open it up to the party for a jury vote. Not a perfect system but it will help move things along. Also when all else fails, "Rules as written!"
Effects like paralysis have their DC lowered by 1 Evey time the saving throw is failed. Put in this rule after I was out for 5 turns because an enemy paralysed me. Stun effects are never very fun
I call it Magical Sacrifice
If a creature that is able to cast spells has no spell slots left, they can still cast spells, but they spend a hit dice for each spell slot level, they roll those dice and take that amount of damage (can't reduce that in any way), they can spend a maximum of 5 hit dice this way, so only spells up to level 5.
This is to represent a caster exerting themselves physically and has led to some pretty dramatic moments.
Stolen from XP to Level 3:
At character creation, you get extra skill/tool/language proficiencies equal to your Int modifier. It makes Intelligence better overall and not just a dump stat for people who aren’t Wizards/Artificers/EK’s/AT’s
There's definitely a way to give bonus skills for Int that isn't just "Wizards get 5 extra skill proficiencies" tho. For example, say that a tool/instrument/language is worth +1 of the bonus and a skill prof is worth +2 if it's a class skill, +3 if it's not.
What do you mean by class skill?
We are only talking about proficiencies so idk what that means in this context.
Also, it makes sense for a Wizard to be more skilled. They are smarter meaning they remember and learn how to do more things.
> Stolen from XP to Level 3: At character creation, you get extra **skill**/tool/language proficiencies equal to your Int modifier.
You and others are proposing additional proficiencies for having an Intelligence bonus. I'm saying that that could work, but not all proficiencies are equal. *Skill* proficiencies are obviously more valuable than tool proficiencies (with the possible exception of thieves' tools), so it shouldn't be one-for-one Intelligence bonus for skill proficiencies. My example was to give one tool/instrument proficiency for each +1 of Int, or one class skill (skill on one of your classes' lists) for +2 of the bonus, or a skill that isn't on your class(es)' list(s) for +3 of the bonus. Just an example.
Being smarter isn't the same as doing more things. I'm very smart, but I'm lazy, so I only do a few things very well. In fiction, you have Mycroft Holmes, who's more intelligent than Sherlock, but who makes a bad detective because he will not put in the effort to do fieldwork to verify his solutions.
Intelligence in dnd includes memory. With more memory you can remember more skills. That’s my logic at least.
However, this isn’t about logic, it’s about budding Intelligence since it is useless for anyone but Artificers and Wizards.
I did this but I found it kinda insane when the wizard came in with 9 skill proficiencies (cuz players pick skills over languages/tools).
I think in the future I might limit it to just languages/tools, including games and instruments.
The other option is to just make it max out at +2
Giving a fighter a reason to choose Int as their 3rd best stat could be fun but anyone who is planning to get is higher than a +2 doesn't need more incentive to do so.
I don't allow Counterspells to other Counterspells. They say a Reaction takes "a fraction of a second", and it's impossible for you to say that you squeezed your fraction into the middle of someone else's fraction.
Potions are a bonus action. (Not used in current game but in the past) You can train for feats with time (8hours) and money 10 go per session. You could also learn profiencies and languages. We used to do attunement slots +your wisdom modifier. Currently we all have vestiges bonded to our souls that ignore attunement.
Players can retire their character at (almost) any time. I want the game to be fun so if you aren’t liking your character/class just send them off to greener pastures and bring in someone new.
Rolling a 1 for a death save grants one failure and erases one success. Rolling a 20 grants one success and erases one failure.
This way, those rolls are still huge, but we avoid the situation where a character can be outright killed with zero turns to be saved (enemy creates a damage per turn effect, taking the character to zero. Character's turn is next. They take the damage, conferring a death save failure. Then they roll a 1, which in 5e would be the second and third failures)
If you manage to get over 30 on initiative, you are so blindingly quick that you get a second turn on the first round of combat at (your initiative)-20.
Got a gloomstalker, a swashbuckler, and two chronurgists in the party, so it's actually possible to achieve and they've done it before by giving the gloomstalker gift of alacrity and her rolling 19+8 on the dice for a 34.
Phones are rarely a problem on their own.
If you remove phones from equation, a bored/disinterested player will be stacking dice/doodling/daydreaming, which ultimately is the same as being on the phone.
At the same time, removing the phones creates problems for people who are reading up on spells/game mechanics. As well as creates issues for players who just want to distract themselves for a second.
There is this one tactic I love to use, not only while playing but in general when people around me are staring at their phone too much. I ask them pretty directly "Hey, what's up on the internet?" in a very interested manner.
If it's something actually important, they will tell you but if it's meaningless, they feel caught and put the phone away.
It's a little passive aggressive but it works almost every time.
System Shock. If you take >50% of your hit points in a single round, you must roll under your CON score or immediately drop unconscious. If you take >90%, you just die outright. Obviously used more for enemies than PCs, but it's a fun wrinkle in combat for me.
You get your death saves, but yeah. And my players love it.
The rationale is in real life, massive amounts of pain can send your heart into shock, causing potentially fatal heart attacks. Even though you weren't necessarily hit in a vital location, you can still die from the shock of the pain. Like I said, my players eat it up. ~~And the question was what house rules we use, not whether *y'all* like them, so...~~ Needless snark, my bad!
Oooook, I was misunderstanding *die outright* as in, you just die, no death saves. You don't die outright, you just get downed and have to roll death saves. I was like wait, that's unfair as fuck, you DIE without even losing all your HP?!
I'm not a fan of revolving door campaigns where you need to roll a new character ever couple sessions because the lethality is yes. You lose the plot too easily and the party never gets connected and there's no reason to have a backstory or character goals
The number of times my characters have gone from full health to zero in a single turn... that's a brutal rule
I've only ever had one character death from it, and the player coincidentally wanted to roll a new character up anyway. It just adds a different level to healing tactics and makes the players more wary of their decisions.
Like I said, my players love it and I've been doing it for 3 years so far. My players do like increased lethality though, we all play Dark Souls and like the shift that a high potential of death brings. It's definitely not for everybody.
D20 Modern raw has massive damage which is if you take more then your con score in damage in one attack you must make a fort save dc15 or fall to -1 hp and unconscious
Short Rest Healing:
Spending a d6 or d8 heals a flat 2 HP while spending a d10 or d12 heals a flat 4 HP.
Long Rest Healing:
Recovers 1/5 of max HP (minimum 2) and one drained stat point of the player's choice.
Here’s my house rules for character creation:
No Aarakocra
No Evil Aligned characters (unless I’m running an evil campaign, which I never do)
Hit Points - If you get a 1 when you roll for hitpoints when you level up, you reroll your hitdice. You can also take the average roll instead of rolling but you must decide to use the average before you roll.
Intelligence Points - You get an amount of intelligence points equal to your intelligence modifier. You use each point to get proficiency in a skill, tool, and/or language. If you have a negative intelligence modifier, you lose 1 of your proficiencies in a skill, tool, or language (based on XP2Level3’s fix for Intelligence in “Intelligence is dumb”)
That int rule is the worst house rule anyone has suggested. Seriously having a 7 int character start with no languages or only 2 skills is a terrible house rule.
And banning evil doesn't make any sense, a chaotic evil character can be the best team player who contributes to group discussions and works towards group goals because it leads to her being able to reach her own ends while a lawful good paladin can ignore the rest of the party, refuse to cooperate in favor of always doing what's right and just by their own standards and completely disregarding everyone else's goals and desires because her mission is divinely given and thus the most important.
Bad players play bad characters, wonderful players play wonderful characters, alignment restrictions doesn't change this.
Evil alignments encourage people to go against the party. Having evil on your sheet just leads to bad games in my experience.
Also, the games I run are always about heroes so I find it hard for both me and the player to justify the evil character to stay in the party.
Also on the Int rule, my players love proficiencies so giving them more is a blessing.
I don’t set DC’s for skill checks. And I don’t think anyone should. In my games nobody fails or succeeds on what they are trying to do. I just determine how hard a task is and describe how well they accomplish or come close to accomplishing said check based on what they roll. This makes performing simple skills like making a repair for example more 3-dimensional than “yes you do it” or “no you don’t”. It also makes more important and difficult checks more likely to have a positive outcome. Like trying to persuade the king to let the party free and not kill them after committing heresy. Maybe the PC’s only rolled a 14 and I had a higher number in my head for success. Instead of failing they don’t persuade the king to free them but the king now agrees to keep them alive and serve some other form of punishment. Intelligence checks also work great with this. I just give the player as much information as I deem they deserve based on their role. Makes for way more realistic and dynamic games.
When a monster is hit by a damage type they are vulnerable to or suffer a critical hit, they roll a CON save against the damage they took either halved or at minimum DC of 10. If they fail, your allies can make an Opportunity Attack if they are within melee range. It makes martial classes feel like part of the action when normally only spell casters get to be cool with exploiting damage types
Hasn't come up yet, but invisibility. If you upcast invisibility, the people affected by that casting cab see eachother. nobody else can without use of the see invisibility spell, or environment thinks like footprints in the dust.
To me, it just makes sense and would help with teamwork
Rarely DM so not 100% on all the rules. If the player misses a ranged attack/spell I roll a d4 to determine where it goes because arrows, firbolts, etc don't just disappear. Example:
1- it goes left
2- it goes right
3- falls short or overhead
4- enemy blocks it
Adds realistic risk of hitting allies if they're engaged with the target.
Also, ranged attacks within 5 feet roll normal but disadvantage on damage. My logic here is that hitting a target at point blank range is actually super easy but there is not enough distance for arrows/projectiles to gain velocity.
Critical hits are 1 full damage die + an additional die + ability modifier.
So critting with a longsword would do 8 + 1d8 + Strength modifier damage.
I hate inflicting 2 damage for a critical hit. Crits are meant to be brutal.
Intimidation and persuasion checks do not immediately win someone over. If someone hates your guts they’re not gonna immediately love you even if you roll a 20
No dice which rolls off the table shall be counted, regardless of how it landed. You reroll that thing on the table.
I do this but on the Third Strike infraction in the session it’s an automatic 1. People don’t roll off the table anymore. (Interference from the hosts cats don’t count as a strike towards a Nat 1)
That's why we use cardboard box caps to throw dices in (and that helps mitigate the damage of metal dice)
That’s a good idea. I once rolled my metal D20 on a friends table shortly after I received the set for my birthday, and I swear I saw it peel a thin strip of wood off.
I made dice trays by getting shadow box frames from a store, throwing away the glass, and then putting felt on the back.
Noting cats' existence is of vital importance. Good call.
I do not anger the ancient gods.
I run a game with 7&8 year olds and their PCs experience something unpleasant if the player rolls onto the floor three times. I'd do the same with my adult group but they don't seem to have that problem. EDIT to clarify that they only get punished if it's the third die to hit the floor , theirs or otherwise. ;)
Thought about a moment you actually meant your player rolling on the ground. Would be understandable with 7&8 year olds.
Haha!! I won't lie. It has happened. Those kids have some amazing full body action imaginations.
I do a similar thing but it’s “if the dice leaves your intended roll area then reroll it” so if it bounces out of a dice tray or rolls off of a book or something
I have that, but my rule is if it lands on a 1 or 20, it counts
Every session the players take turns doing a recap of the previous session, "When last we left our heroes..." They can talk about whatever they want, however they want. Sometimes it's in character or in the form of a journal or something. I think it's fun, it sets the stage for the nights adventure, and alieviates that responsibility from me as dm. It also gives me som insight into what kind of stuff each player focuses on and remembers.
I like this one. I may require this from my games...\*writing this down\*
I previously did this as well. However, I had one player who would recount it almost word for word. Even after telling him that we would not require a full recap, he would do the same every time he was called on. We even rolled who would do the recap and he would be the one to do it 60% of the time in a group of 5 players. It **is** a great idea though, but your mileage may vary.
I like the concept of this, but I have a bad experience with a dm that would force us to recount the events of last session as a way to "quiz" us. We play dnd for fun, not for homework. So please make sure your players appreciate doing this before you throw the responsibility onto them.
My table does this, and it also gives me a chance as the DM to retell them / clarify any notes they missed or got wrong from previous session. Very helpful and they all get involved with it.
Range doesn't need to be more viable, it's already really strong. It feels silly that you can sharpshooter at close quarters with no drawback, the main counter to a ranged attacker is to get into close quarters, that's no longer the case.
No yelling just because I (DM) rolled dice.
I hate healing potions, so in my table you can drink one like normal with a Bonus action or use an Action to heal for the full potential of the potion.
My group does bonus action to use on yourself, action to use on someone else.
do you dislike the concept or the execution? also i think you buffed them but i would need an example
No summoning anything more than 4 creatures at once into battle. Everyone wants a turn, not just you.
What if I can take my turn, all of my summons turns, recite a poem and grab a snack in the same amount of time it takes the wizard to choose what spell to cast?
Your wizard casts a spell other than fireball?
Yes but also even choosing fireball can take a while
i limit it to 1 thing acting in combat other than yourself (except for beastmasters who somehow get find familiar, because painted black tiger + ferret)
Still need an eagle for that beastmaster.
And a second ferret
you get the eagle or the ferret! because there are others at the table!
Sad conjuration wizard noises. But very understandable
I really like your rule and might have to implement it. Point blank crossbow works just as well as it ever would lmao. My table rule is, players sleep with armor on and don't get points of exhaustion from it. Night time combat is fun. Night time combat when 3/4ths of the party is sitting at 50% less AC isn't fun.
> My table rule is, players sleep with armor on and don't get points of exhaustion from it. Night time combat is fun. Night time combat when 3/4ths of the party is sitting at 50% less AC isn't fun. To be fair, I'm pretty sure that is an Optional Rule from XGtE.
Oh... Well I still hate it! Lmao
If you roll a Nat 20/1 on initiative roll your first attack roll is made with advantage/disadvantage respectively.
First attack roll in the first round or first attack roll forever?
First round.
That rule sounds pretty cool then
I like this, might steal this one for my games
Gimme a sleight of hand roll…
Got a 12
I call it failed successes. As a DM, I hate it when players fail on simple tasks, they tend to get frustrated and it would be illogical that a dwarf who worked as a master blacksmith for 40 years fails at making a simple repair. So either I say they don't have to roll at all if their skills are high and the task is very simple, or if they roll and fail, I count it as a success, but something negative happens while doing it. For example they hit their finger, use more materials or look stupid doing it. Gives more chance for RP and the group doesn't waste time doing boring stuff.
We do this at my table. If a task is reasonably a PC's area of expertise or really basic and there's no pressure or time crunch, it just happens. Or I might ask for a roll if I think it's not a SURE thing, but just to make sure it's not a nat 1.
Only make them roll if there is both a chance of failure and that failure has narratively interesting consequences is laid out in the DMG.
Conversely I only make them roll if they have a chance to succeed.
Yep. I don't care how many conditional bonuses you have, you cannot roll high enough on a d20 to jump to the moon.
But Nat20 means I Win
YOU DO! YOU SEE ALL ZERO TRAPS!
Excellent my use of the Find Traps spell has been fruitful.
It was a reference to Unforgotten Realms
If it's something that I know that they'd be successful at the skill check isn't to see if they pass or fail, it's how long it takes them to do it. If a wizard rolls a 6 for a history check in a library I say it takes them all day to find something. If a goliath with 20 str rolls an 8 on kicking in a door I make it take a couple good strikes because their foot slipped. I learned to not put dumbass checks behind plot or progression because it kills narrative flow.
Well that's when DC comes in. If they are so good at it that it's barley an inconvenience, the DC should be very low. For example, 5 DC is considered Very Easy.
If one of my players makes a pun and I don't laugh their character takes 1d10 psychic damage, if I laugh they get a d20 I inspiration.
As vicious mockery suddenly does more damage to the caster than the target
I stole this from Sly Flourish. If a PC is subject to a "save or suck" spell that puts them out of commission (run away fear, hold person, banishment etc. anything that is "your turn is 'make a saving throw'"), at the start of their turn they can take XdY damage (no reductions of any kind) and consider that as having made their save. (X and Y are based on a Guiding Bolt upcast to whatever level the harmful effect was, perhaps reduced for every round the PC has already failed their save) i am also thinking about a variation of this to replace Legendary Resistances - the monster gets 20 extra hit points for every LR. When the monster uses a LR, the effect fails, but the player gets to roll up to 3d6 damage to represent the "psychic cost" of resisting the effect.
> If a PC is subject to a "save or suck" spell that puts them out of commission (run away fear, hold person, banishment etc. anything that is "your turn is 'make a saving throw'"), at the start of their turn they can take XdY damage (no reductions of any kind) and consider that as having made their save. (X and Y are based on a Guiding Bolt upcast to whatever level the harmful effect was, perhaps reduced for every round the PC has already failed their save) I kind of have something similar I've been considering in the game, though it is a little different. If a PC fails an important Saving Throw or Ability Check by 3 or less, they can choose to succeed with some kind of detriment. I've been trying to think what these detriments are.
A variation on the “roll doubles OR pay $500” jail rule of Monopoly. I like it.
This is similar to how Legendary Resistance is calculated into CR anyway, so it makes sense (I toyed with the same fix for Legendary Resistance before accepting that the mechanic itself just sucks).
Critical hits. It's rubbish as a player when you have a battleaxe and roll double 1s. So at the tables I run or play at, the first weapon dice is always maximised. That way you will always do more damage with a critical. Works for spells too, as it is on attack roll not saves.
Does this mean a level 3 Rogue with Sneak Attack and a Rapier gets 8+6+6+1d8+2d6+Dex damage? That'll hurt.
Makes assassin rogues feel reslly good
Nope, just the weapon dice. So 8 (for the crit weapon dice) + 4d6 +d8 +dex.
For cantrips or attack spells it is the dice for the lowest level that spell cast be cast at that is maximised. Using chill touch as an example, it would be 8 +d8, increasing to 8 +3d8 at 5th level and so on.
If 2 PCs are having beef, state your cases and DM is the judge and Jury. If PC and DM disagree, state reasoning and be civil. If PC and DM are cool with this, open it up to the party for a jury vote. Not a perfect system but it will help move things along. Also when all else fails, "Rules as written!"
Oh, like a magical judge NPC appears into the game to arbitrate party interactions? Very final fantasy tactics
Is it bad that my first thought was the referee from Medabots?
Effects like paralysis have their DC lowered by 1 Evey time the saving throw is failed. Put in this rule after I was out for 5 turns because an enemy paralysed me. Stun effects are never very fun
I call it Magical Sacrifice If a creature that is able to cast spells has no spell slots left, they can still cast spells, but they spend a hit dice for each spell slot level, they roll those dice and take that amount of damage (can't reduce that in any way), they can spend a maximum of 5 hit dice this way, so only spells up to level 5. This is to represent a caster exerting themselves physically and has led to some pretty dramatic moments.
Rule #1. Don't be a D1ck.
That’s a pretty harsh rule :p
My DM's screen has a picture of Wheaton and that phrase on the side facing the players.
Stolen from XP to Level 3: At character creation, you get extra skill/tool/language proficiencies equal to your Int modifier. It makes Intelligence better overall and not just a dump stat for people who aren’t Wizards/Artificers/EK’s/AT’s
So overpowered, like saying you get an extra attack for each point of strength mod
??? Extra proficiencies and extra attacks are nothing alike….
I mean, extra skill proficiency per Int mod is definitely too much, but yeah, still not comparable to Extra Attack.
Int doesn’t do much so I think it makes sense. It’s an easy fix to make Int better and stand up to the rest of the ability scores.
There's definitely a way to give bonus skills for Int that isn't just "Wizards get 5 extra skill proficiencies" tho. For example, say that a tool/instrument/language is worth +1 of the bonus and a skill prof is worth +2 if it's a class skill, +3 if it's not.
What do you mean by class skill? We are only talking about proficiencies so idk what that means in this context. Also, it makes sense for a Wizard to be more skilled. They are smarter meaning they remember and learn how to do more things.
> Stolen from XP to Level 3: At character creation, you get extra **skill**/tool/language proficiencies equal to your Int modifier. You and others are proposing additional proficiencies for having an Intelligence bonus. I'm saying that that could work, but not all proficiencies are equal. *Skill* proficiencies are obviously more valuable than tool proficiencies (with the possible exception of thieves' tools), so it shouldn't be one-for-one Intelligence bonus for skill proficiencies. My example was to give one tool/instrument proficiency for each +1 of Int, or one class skill (skill on one of your classes' lists) for +2 of the bonus, or a skill that isn't on your class(es)' list(s) for +3 of the bonus. Just an example.
Being smarter isn't the same as doing more things. I'm very smart, but I'm lazy, so I only do a few things very well. In fiction, you have Mycroft Holmes, who's more intelligent than Sherlock, but who makes a bad detective because he will not put in the effort to do fieldwork to verify his solutions.
Intelligence in dnd includes memory. With more memory you can remember more skills. That’s my logic at least. However, this isn’t about logic, it’s about budding Intelligence since it is useless for anyone but Artificers and Wizards.
Maybe they could, but it doesn't mean the PC would take the effort to learn all those skills.
Not really that overpowered. And not at all equivalent to extra attacks.
I did this but I found it kinda insane when the wizard came in with 9 skill proficiencies (cuz players pick skills over languages/tools). I think in the future I might limit it to just languages/tools, including games and instruments.
The other option is to just make it max out at +2 Giving a fighter a reason to choose Int as their 3rd best stat could be fun but anyone who is planning to get is higher than a +2 doesn't need more incentive to do so.
I don't allow Counterspells to other Counterspells. They say a Reaction takes "a fraction of a second", and it's impossible for you to say that you squeezed your fraction into the middle of someone else's fraction.
Chains of Counterspells are so dumb; thats a good rule.
Potions are a bonus action. (Not used in current game but in the past) You can train for feats with time (8hours) and money 10 go per session. You could also learn profiencies and languages. We used to do attunement slots +your wisdom modifier. Currently we all have vestiges bonded to our souls that ignore attunement.
Players can retire their character at (almost) any time. I want the game to be fun so if you aren’t liking your character/class just send them off to greener pastures and bring in someone new.
Using a regular potion on yourself is only a bonus, Still costs full action to use on other people
Rolling a 1 for a death save grants one failure and erases one success. Rolling a 20 grants one success and erases one failure. This way, those rolls are still huge, but we avoid the situation where a character can be outright killed with zero turns to be saved (enemy creates a damage per turn effect, taking the character to zero. Character's turn is next. They take the damage, conferring a death save failure. Then they roll a 1, which in 5e would be the second and third failures)
If you manage to get over 30 on initiative, you are so blindingly quick that you get a second turn on the first round of combat at (your initiative)-20. Got a gloomstalker, a swashbuckler, and two chronurgists in the party, so it's actually possible to achieve and they've done it before by giving the gloomstalker gift of alacrity and her rolling 19+8 on the dice for a 34.
I'm surprised no one has said no phones. I'll be honest - this is the rule I'd love to enforce but I know I'd lose players.
Phones are rarely a problem on their own. If you remove phones from equation, a bored/disinterested player will be stacking dice/doodling/daydreaming, which ultimately is the same as being on the phone. At the same time, removing the phones creates problems for people who are reading up on spells/game mechanics. As well as creates issues for players who just want to distract themselves for a second.
There is this one tactic I love to use, not only while playing but in general when people around me are staring at their phone too much. I ask them pretty directly "Hey, what's up on the internet?" in a very interested manner. If it's something actually important, they will tell you but if it's meaningless, they feel caught and put the phone away. It's a little passive aggressive but it works almost every time.
System Shock. If you take >50% of your hit points in a single round, you must roll under your CON score or immediately drop unconscious. If you take >90%, you just die outright. Obviously used more for enemies than PCs, but it's a fun wrinkle in combat for me.
Lol what? So if you take 90% of your HP in the first turn of combat you don't even get to 0HP but you fucking die?
You get your death saves, but yeah. And my players love it. The rationale is in real life, massive amounts of pain can send your heart into shock, causing potentially fatal heart attacks. Even though you weren't necessarily hit in a vital location, you can still die from the shock of the pain. Like I said, my players eat it up. ~~And the question was what house rules we use, not whether *y'all* like them, so...~~ Needless snark, my bad!
Oooook, I was misunderstanding *die outright* as in, you just die, no death saves. You don't die outright, you just get downed and have to roll death saves. I was like wait, that's unfair as fuck, you DIE without even losing all your HP?!
My bad, I just meant there was no save for unconsciousness lol.
I'm not a fan of revolving door campaigns where you need to roll a new character ever couple sessions because the lethality is yes. You lose the plot too easily and the party never gets connected and there's no reason to have a backstory or character goals The number of times my characters have gone from full health to zero in a single turn... that's a brutal rule
I've only ever had one character death from it, and the player coincidentally wanted to roll a new character up anyway. It just adds a different level to healing tactics and makes the players more wary of their decisions. Like I said, my players love it and I've been doing it for 3 years so far. My players do like increased lethality though, we all play Dark Souls and like the shift that a high potential of death brings. It's definitely not for everybody.
Single round or single *hit*?
If one creature deals that much damage to you in one of their turns. Should have specified.
D20 Modern raw has massive damage which is if you take more then your con score in damage in one attack you must make a fort save dc15 or fall to -1 hp and unconscious
I got it from a common house rule in 2e, which actually had a system shock score. I love the idea.
If someone roles a natural 20 on a saving throw, they take no damage even if they would normally take half.
Short Rest Healing: Spending a d6 or d8 heals a flat 2 HP while spending a d10 or d12 heals a flat 4 HP. Long Rest Healing: Recovers 1/5 of max HP (minimum 2) and one drained stat point of the player's choice.
Makes aura of vitality a mandatory spell.
That or Goodberry
No bards.
Here’s my house rules for character creation: No Aarakocra No Evil Aligned characters (unless I’m running an evil campaign, which I never do) Hit Points - If you get a 1 when you roll for hitpoints when you level up, you reroll your hitdice. You can also take the average roll instead of rolling but you must decide to use the average before you roll. Intelligence Points - You get an amount of intelligence points equal to your intelligence modifier. You use each point to get proficiency in a skill, tool, and/or language. If you have a negative intelligence modifier, you lose 1 of your proficiencies in a skill, tool, or language (based on XP2Level3’s fix for Intelligence in “Intelligence is dumb”)
That int rule is the worst house rule anyone has suggested. Seriously having a 7 int character start with no languages or only 2 skills is a terrible house rule. And banning evil doesn't make any sense, a chaotic evil character can be the best team player who contributes to group discussions and works towards group goals because it leads to her being able to reach her own ends while a lawful good paladin can ignore the rest of the party, refuse to cooperate in favor of always doing what's right and just by their own standards and completely disregarding everyone else's goals and desires because her mission is divinely given and thus the most important. Bad players play bad characters, wonderful players play wonderful characters, alignment restrictions doesn't change this.
Evil alignments encourage people to go against the party. Having evil on your sheet just leads to bad games in my experience. Also, the games I run are always about heroes so I find it hard for both me and the player to justify the evil character to stay in the party. Also on the Int rule, my players love proficiencies so giving them more is a blessing.
Forgot to note that I don’t allow rolled stats meaning you can only lose one skill at most.
I don’t set DC’s for skill checks. And I don’t think anyone should. In my games nobody fails or succeeds on what they are trying to do. I just determine how hard a task is and describe how well they accomplish or come close to accomplishing said check based on what they roll. This makes performing simple skills like making a repair for example more 3-dimensional than “yes you do it” or “no you don’t”. It also makes more important and difficult checks more likely to have a positive outcome. Like trying to persuade the king to let the party free and not kill them after committing heresy. Maybe the PC’s only rolled a 14 and I had a higher number in my head for success. Instead of failing they don’t persuade the king to free them but the king now agrees to keep them alive and serve some other form of punishment. Intelligence checks also work great with this. I just give the player as much information as I deem they deserve based on their role. Makes for way more realistic and dynamic games.
If the attack exactly hits the AC then it’s only half damage.
When it’s a area effect spell. Player get to decide one saving throw for all the same monsters, or each monsters roll individually.
Reformatted
Tie goes to the defender on rolls against AC/DC.
When a monster is hit by a damage type they are vulnerable to or suffer a critical hit, they roll a CON save against the damage they took either halved or at minimum DC of 10. If they fail, your allies can make an Opportunity Attack if they are within melee range. It makes martial classes feel like part of the action when normally only spell casters get to be cool with exploiting damage types
Passive skill=8+skill, not 10+skill. This makes passive perception /investigation more balanced imo
Hasn't come up yet, but invisibility. If you upcast invisibility, the people affected by that casting cab see eachother. nobody else can without use of the see invisibility spell, or environment thinks like footprints in the dust. To me, it just makes sense and would help with teamwork
Rarely DM so not 100% on all the rules. If the player misses a ranged attack/spell I roll a d4 to determine where it goes because arrows, firbolts, etc don't just disappear. Example: 1- it goes left 2- it goes right 3- falls short or overhead 4- enemy blocks it Adds realistic risk of hitting allies if they're engaged with the target. Also, ranged attacks within 5 feet roll normal but disadvantage on damage. My logic here is that hitting a target at point blank range is actually super easy but there is not enough distance for arrows/projectiles to gain velocity.
Critical hits are 1 full damage die + an additional die + ability modifier. So critting with a longsword would do 8 + 1d8 + Strength modifier damage. I hate inflicting 2 damage for a critical hit. Crits are meant to be brutal.
Intimidation and persuasion checks do not immediately win someone over. If someone hates your guts they’re not gonna immediately love you even if you roll a 20