Worst REAL house rules you've used

[Lalliman]

I like fumble rules that incorporate your opponent. If you roll a 1, the person you're attacking can make an opportunity attack / try to trip you / try to disarm you. That way they won't happen against a dummy, and a high-level character is unlikely to suffer from it against weak opponents. Unfortunately it's not that simple with ranged attacks.

[Cluedrew]

I've been sparring with you since you could barely lift a sword. I can tell you're getting better, because you drop your sword much more often now. In fact, you almost drop it as often as the Master.

... Is an observation that should have the opportunity to be made by no-one.

This is the problem really. Critical fumbles are not based off of skill, but attack rate. And of course magic doesn't have this issue because why would a complex formula tapping into the occult forces and took years of study to learn be complex enough that trying to perform it while someone is physically hitting once every second or two be difficult enough that you might actually make a mistake?

"You have improved, the damage done by your magical miscasts is much more severe now." is also something that might best be avoided, but it makes a bit more sense than Quertus's line. A lot of fantasy stories involve some great mystic disaster, not so often from regular spells but still, there is a connection there. Unlike that epic fight in Lord of the Rings where Aragon dropped his sword while taking a swing at an orc and had to be saved by the horse lord who's name I forget while defending Helm's Deep. Because you know, that never happened.

[King of Nowhere]

In a game of AD&D 2e, one DM automatically gave each PC and NPC maximum die rolls for hit points. OK, that's completely balanced, since is just about doubles hit points for everybody. The only real effect is that it makes CON bonuses less important overall. [A fighter's CON bonus of +3 per die is a 30% increase (10 to 13) rather than a 55% increase (5.5 to 8.5).]

To keep things fair, he also made magical attacks -- fireballs and the like -- deal out maximum hp damage. OK, again, that makes sense. Double the characters' hp, double the damage from attacks. No real change, right?

But you still rolled for damage from weapons. This had the relative affect of reducing the damage from weapons, since the did the same damage to monsters with nearly doubled points.

I don't think the players with the paladin, fighter, or ranger ever figured out that their swords had been effectively dulled. I did, but my wife was the wizard and I was the wizard/ thief, so I had no objections.

actually, giving full hit dice does not mean doubling hit points, because there is the CON modifier that is not changed, and it helps fighters, because it makes hit dice more important over CON modifier. As an example, a wizard with +3 CON gets 5.5 hp per level, a fighter 8.5. With full hit dice, the wizard get 7, the fighter 13. It's a slight buff, and it favors martials, so it's ok. but yeah, spells with full damage make little sense.

[Christopher K.]

A DM in a short-lived 5e game I was in had us use 3d6 instead of a d20, and didn't bother to figure out what the impact on the system would be. My paladin never took damage thanks to bounded accuracy being stingy with to hit bonuses.

[EldritchWeaver]

I don’t personally mind crit fumbles, but our DM has us roll again on a natural 1 to confirm, so that lowers the fumble chance below 5%, and then rolls d% for the effect, so the negative effect isn’t always dropping the weapon. It sounds like some DMs make every natural 1 an instant weapon drop, which I would mind a lot more.

If the solution to "fumbles are annoying" is "let's have less fumbles", then this should be an indicator, that the real solution is "let's have no fumbles".

[Adrastos42]

I've been sparring with you since you could barely lift a sword. I can tell you're getting better, because you drop your sword much more often now. In fact, you almost drop it as often as the Master.

... Is an observation that should have the opportunity to be made by no-one.

Hmm. If crit fumbles have to be used, how would you feel about a fumble only happening if ALL (or possibly above X%, depends on balance) of your attack rolls that turn are a natural 1? That would vastly decrease the chance of it happening at higher levels, as would be expected.

Magic is, of course, another issue.

[EldritchWeaver]

Hmm. If crit fumbles have to be used, how would you feel about a fumble only happening if ALL (or possibly above X%, depends on balance) of your attack rolls that turn are a natural 1? That would vastly decrease the chance of it happening at higher levels, as would be expected.

Magic is, of course, another issue.

So a guy with five attacks (haste) has a chance of 0.0000003125 to suffer from a fumble. Even just two attacks push that to 0,0025. Which is 1:400. At this point you can just throw them out of the window. Also, anyone with natural attacks will benefit from this rule, as you can get at least 3 attacks already at level one.

[King of Nowhere]

I like fumble rules that incorporate your opponent. If you roll a 1, the person you're attacking can make an opportunity attack / try to trip you / try to disarm you. That way they won't happen against a dummy, and a high-level character is unlikely to suffer from it against weak opponents. Unfortunately it's not that simple with ranged attacks.

This. "dropping your weapon" isn't a common result in swordfighting - how often have you seen anyone ever do that? But going off-balance and opening yourself to the enemy is something that happens all the time.

So fumbling rules would be all right if the result of the fumble was anything from the opponent getting an attack of opportunity, a disarm attempt, or you getting an AC penalty, or getting a penalty for the next attack(s).
And it would make total sense that a more skilled fighter would suffer more of those consequences with more attacks per round. Have you ever actually sparred? I only did it very rarely, but even I know that to try and hit your opponent you must open yourself - to the point that a mutual kill is actually the most common result. Dual wielding and trying to actually hit with both weapons is even worse. I never managed to hit with the secondary weapon without getting hit myself (though that's partly because when i realized I was about to get it, I'd step forward to counterstrike. I knew my opponent was more skilled, so I was in the mindset "a mutual kill is a good result" and acted accordingly).
So, you attack more often, you also give more chances to a skilled opponent to take advantage from it.

Also, having a confirmation roll means that you are more likely to be punished for a misstep by a more armored opponent - one who is either very skilled himself, or one who's wearing enough metal that he can afford to ignore your sword hitting him while he steps up to skewer you. Again, pretty realistic.

The question is whether it is worth to have all the extra rule supplements and extra rolls for it.

[Cluedrew]

To Adrastos42: I remember a system that was described as 2d6+stat but was really Xd6+stat. It was not uncommon to get a bonus that had you rolling on 3d6 and some penalties will have you rolling 1d6. I once stacked things up to 5d6 but that is as high as I know it to go. Anyways, the point of this story is there was a system* that you auto missed on all ones. So even if your stat was high enough to hit on its own getting an extra die still improved your hit chances. By about 5/216 so it really wasn't worth spending resources on.

But that sort of thing has been done, not quite in this context. The main issue of going per-attack is that D&D does 1d20+stat. Maybe if you started with a twenty and had a increasing bonus die? So a non-combatant got 1d20+[small modifier], a half melee might get 1d20+1d6+modifier and the fighter might have 1d20+1d10+[large-modifier].

[JNAProductions]

For 5E, these are my fumble rules. I've never used 'em, but if players WANTED to, I would.

1) You can only fumble on the FIRST attack you make a round. This is to avoid punishing people for extra attacks.

2) Before a fumble actually occurs, roll a d6. If it is equal to or less than your proficiency bonus (which goes from +2 to +6) you don't fumble, you just miss. So as you level up, fumbles are less likely, and at level 17 and beyond, you never fumble. You can adjust the die size, if you want more or less odds of fumbling.

3) With every spell that targets an enemy, roll a d20. On a 1, you fumble, and the spell doesn't go off. However, you do not expend the spell slot.

4) When you fumble, you can choose from the following results if you're a weapon wielder:
-You provoke an AoO (only if within reach of an enemy)
-You drop your weapon
-You lose your next attack (only if you have multiple attacks and actually CAN lose one this turn)

And if you're a mage, you can choose from the following lists:
-You provoke an AoO (only if within reach of an enemy)
-You suffer magical backlash, unresistable damage equal to twice the spell level (cantrips count as .5)

Now, this does leave buffing, healing, and summoning untouched. I'm fine with buffing and healing being untouched-I want to support teamwork. But I do kinda want to make summons fumbleable, since they can attack pretty well. But, that's what I got.

Again-I've never used this, and I don't plan to. But I've thought on it.

[SimonMoon6]

And of course magic doesn't have this issue because why would a complex formula tapping into the occult forces and took years of study to learn be complex enough that trying to perform it while someone is physically hitting once every second or two be difficult enough that you might actually make a mistake?

To be fair, that's what the Concentration check is supposed to deal with. But while you might fail to cast a spell, you never accidentally drop your brain when you fail a Concentration check. Should Concentration checks have critical fumbles? Probably not; skills aren't designed with fumbles or critical hits in mind. But unfortunately, Concentration checks are too easy to make (and if they're hard, take a five foot step back first and you'll be fine).

I like the idea that I've seen in some game systems that each type of spell requires a different skill and to cast a spell, you have to succeed at a skill roll for that spell. Something like that would more easily support critical hits and critical fumbles, but ideally, this would be built into the game system from the ground up, with each spell having a listing for what happens if you roll a critical failure when you cast it.

Without rewriting all of D&D, I'd say that casters should have to make a Spellcraft check equal to the DC of the spell they're casting in order to succeed. Then, they can have critical fumbles, causing them to not only lose the spell (as they would from a failed check), but also to have some other negative effect (for example, Xd6 damage where X is the level of the spell).

[JMS]

I like the idea that I've seen in some game systems that each type of spell requires a different skill and to cast a spell, you have to succeed at a skill roll for that spell. Something like that would more easily support critical hits and critical fumbles, but ideally, this would be built into the game system from the ground up, with each spell having a listing for what happens if you roll a critical failure when you cast it.

Without rewriting all of D&D, I'd say that casters should have to make a Spellcraft check equal to the DC of the spell they're casting in order to succeed. Then, they can have critical fumbles, causing them to not only lose the spell (as they would from a failed check), but also to have some other negative effect (for example, Xd6 damage where X is the level of the spell).

Hey, just an idea, but maybe a wild magic system like the 5e sorc origin or spheres of power - http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/wild-magic

[GreatWyrmGold]

I've been sparring with you since you could barely lift a sword. I can tell you're getting better, because you drop your sword much more often now. In fact, you almost drop it as often as the Master.

But while you might fail to cast a spell, you never accidentally drop your brain when you fail a Concentration check.

Is it weird that I'm trying to think of ways to justify these things happening in my fantasy worlds?

[noob]

Augh I said the name of the elder ancients wrong and they like to unbrain people saying their name wrong!(justification for dropping your brain)

As for supersonic swords being hard to keep in your hand it makes sense and having nobody think "I am going to use a locked gauntlet or a lanyard" is something that can happen without everybody screaming constantly (for example it happens in harry potter: wands are weapons that people like to disarm yet nobody had the idea to use a locked gauntlet nor a lanyard)
+10 in strength means you muscles creates four times the amount of energy you had before.(since you can lift 4 times more) which means you can make your weapon move twice as fast.
In fact it is the only way to increase the kinetic energy of your swing since the weight of your body and the weight of your sword stood the same.
If attack throws represents how fast your are swinging your weapon around it can mean that +5 to attack throws double the speed of the weapon so every 5 levels you are moving your weapon twice as fast and possibly even more because your strength is raising too.
At level 20 the 60 strength fighter is swinging his weapon roughly 512 times faster than a person with 10 str and 0 bab(the average commoner so similar to a real life untrained human) so that fighter is indeed likely to be creating sonic booms with his sword and stuff it hits seems as if they were blown up by railguns.

[EldritchWeaver]

At level 20 the 60 strength fighter is swinging his weapon roughly 512 times faster than a person with 10 str and 0 bab(the average commoner so similar to a real life untrained human) so that fighter is indeed likely to be creating sonic booms with his sword and stuff it hits seems as if they were blown up by railguns.

And people complain that ToB/PoW are too anime...

[King of Nowhere]

+10 in strength means you muscles creates four times the amount of energy you had before.(since you can lift 4 times more) which means you can make your weapon move twice as fast.
In fact it is the only way to increase the kinetic energy of your swing since the weight of your body and the weight of your sword stood the same.
If attack throws represents how fast your are swinging your weapon around it can mean that +5 to attack throws double the speed of the weapon so every 5 levels you are moving your weapon twice as fast and possibly even more because your strength is raising too.
At level 20 the 60 strength fighter is swinging his weapon roughly 512 times faster than a person with 10 str and 0 bab(the average commoner so similar to a real life untrained human) so that fighter is indeed likely to be creating sonic booms with his sword and stuff it hits seems as if they were blown up by railguns.

well, a sword wielded by a high level fighter deals damage roughly akin to ten rifle bullets.
Your calculation looks dumb, but it actually would explain a lot. Including why dodge bonuses become irrelevant if not backed up by ridiculous armor. It's pretty hard to dodge a supersonic sword!

I'm almost tempted to make canon for my campaign world that high level people can make supersonic booms with their weapons

EDIT: incidentallly, a quick googling revealed that real swords can impact at speeds a bit over 100 km/h at the tip, which is roughly one tenth the speed of sound.
Since it's already well established that high level people are superpowered, it's not even that ridiculous that a guy who could lift ten tons with his bare arms, could climb a very high tower, jump down over sharp rocks, climb back again and repeat the process three or four times and still be in decent fighting shape, the guy who can face a fire-breathing creature bigger than an elephant, with sharp teeth and claws and wings and scales harder than any metal, armed with a sword, and confidently expect to win, well, I'm ready to accept that this guy can also swing a sword some ten times faster than a regular dude, which means breaking the speed of sound at times.
It's official. the next time the barbarian rolls a 20 to hit, I'm going to announce a sonic boom. Purely for flavor.

[Knaight]

+10 in strength means you muscles creates four times the amount of energy you had before.(since you can lift 4 times more) which means you can make your weapon move twice as fast.

If you ignore air resistance, ergonomics, and basically everything other than a simplified physics model, sure. That said we do see strength differences in actual people and how they move things, for more applicable data; it suggests that you get far less than a square root of relative strength gain in speed.

In fact it is the only way to increase the kinetic energy of your swing since the weight of your body and the weight of your sword stood the same.

See my previous comment. Moving differently is a thing.

If attack throws represents how fast your are swinging your weapon around it can mean that +5 to attack throws double the speed of the weapon so every 5 levels you are moving your weapon twice as fast and possibly even more because your strength is raising too.

That's an incredibly dubious interpretation. Being more skilled often translates to moving faster by moving less, where less motion is wasted. This is particularly true given the way attack rolls explicitly don't represent one swing of the sword.

At level 20 the 60 strength fighter is swinging his weapon roughly 512 times faster than a person with 10 str and 0 bab(the average commoner so similar to a real life untrained human) so that fighter is indeed likely to be creating sonic booms with his sword and stuff it hits seems as if they were blown up by railguns.

60 strength is a bit of an exceptional case, but this doesn't really hold. Yes, you're 1024 times as strong, and should probably move on up to a heavier weapon, but assuming it perfectly gets even 32 times the weapon speed is some pretty excessive bad physics in D&D.

[Arbane]

One of the most universal bad house rules is that when a fighter tries to do something superhuman, out come the slide-rules and anatomy textbooks, but when a wizard does something superhuman with a spell, it's just 'yeah, sure'.

[Luccan]

One of the most universal bad house rules is that when a fighter tries to do something superhuman, out come the slide-rules and anatomy textbooks, but when a wizard does something superhuman with a spell, it's just 'yeah, sure'.

Especially if it's something explicitly possible by the rules that's changed for "realism"

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the most universal bad house rules is that when a fighter tries to do something superhuman, out come the slide-rules and anatomy textbooks, but when a wizard does something superhuman with a spell, it's just 'yeah, sure'.

Especially if it's something explicitly possible by the rules that's changed for "realism"

I have to agree with this. "But realistically..." is too often the intro to something

a) fun destroying from a DM OR
b) loophole-seeking (and fun destroying) from a player

[Anonymouswizard]

One of the most universal bad house rules is that when a fighter tries to do something superhuman, out come the slide-rules and anatomy textbooks, but when a wizard does something superhuman with a spell, it's just 'yeah, sure'.

I've encountered so many problems with the opposite. I've tried to previously rule mages back to the point where they're doing the same things as mundanes just in a different way (generally in other systems than D&D, which will tend to have a lower ceiling on magical power anyway), and people complain when their mage isn't throwing out AoE fireballs or teleporting or the like. I love mages who's spells are generally single target, not too easy to pull off, and within what nonmagical party members can theoretically pull off. To take d6 Fantasy as an example, a spell that allowed you to pick locks as if you had 6D in the skill would be reasonable (as a focused starting character can pick that up), but one that allowed you to fly wouldn't be.

If you want big spells be prepared to use hours or days-long rituals for them, or be prepared to have to beat an insane casting difficulty. Because by the point you can pull them off reliably the party warrior can slice the wings off a fly.

Especially if it's something explicitly possible by the rules that's changed for "realism"

This, so much this. I've begun to explicitly change rules in the name of cool as a pushback. Sure, it might not be realistic that you can leap that chasm, but it would fly in a film and so I'll allow it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This, so much this. I've begun to explicitly change rules in the name of cool as a pushback. Sure, it might not be realistic that you can leap that chasm, but it would fly in a film and so I'll allow it.

Being honest about what genre you're playing in makes a big difference. In a game about realistic WWII soldiers, realism is important. In a game of fantastic heroes in a fantastic world, cinematic stunts that evoke legendary heroes are the realism of the world. D&D's underlying physics engine is much more attuned to the rule of cool than to the rule of the real world.

[Anonymouswizard]

Being honest about what genre you're playing in makes a big difference. In a game about realistic WWII soldiers, realism is important. In a game of fantastic heroes in a fantastic world, cinematic stunts that evoke legendary heroes are the realism of the world. D&D's underlying physics engine is much more attuned to the rule of cool than to the rule of the real world.

True, although I've also found that when trying to emulate realism ruling in favour of cool still works, because people tend to underestimate what people can realistically do. But genre emulation is certainly more important than anything else.

Oh, here's one that annoyed me not because of the rule, but because of the presentation. I wanted to play a magic-weilding priest in a game of All Flesh Must be Eaten, but was banned because apparently we were going for realism.

Two sessions in, zombie that produced petrol from nothing and set it alight to make flame breath (uh)

Next session a zombie able to move so fast friction should have caused surfaces to heat up (uh.... suffice to say, no heated surfaces)

By the end of the game, literally teleporting zombies (which came after the worm made out of hundreds of zombies smashed together, but I wasn't there for that session, and some other weirdness we completely missed due to spending our entire time heading towards an industrial estate before building the strongest base we could)

So it was a case of 'realism for thee but not for me', which would have been fine if it had been established as that in the first place.

Spoiler: More ranting about this game

Show

Oh, and I asked if Resources 5 would allow me to start with a portable science lab (because Resources gives you stuff worth approximately $X per level, I had something like $20000 worth which I reasoned was enough for some electical stuff and a bunch of tools for basic chemical analysis). Instead I was told I had cash, and then we didn't interact with any other living humans until the final session where we were straight up given equipment.

We later worked out exactly why I had this useless cash, I was the only person to put points into Resources and the GM was fearful of the stuff I'd think to start with (I honestly shouldn't have begun with the homemade railgun, he overestimates their power to an insane degree). That's right, the GM was so afraid of what I might do if I could efficiently investigate the zombies that he essentially made Resources into a trap option.

To be fair I later proved him right, when I got access to a big warehouse full of electronic and electrical components I immediately began rigging up experiments and in about five days learnt more about zombies than the military had in two years (turned out that you couldn't use pain to train them, although you could get them to spasm by connecting them up to a relatively low wattage). Imagine what I'd have done if I'd been able to efficiently investigat their rate of decay, determine in-depth phisological changes, and start investigating the abilities of 'special' zombies.

[icefractal]

I've tried to previously rule mages back to the point where they're doing the same things as mundanes just in a different way (generally in other systems than D&D, which will tend to have a lower ceiling on magical power anyway), and people complain when their mage isn't throwing out AoE fireballs or teleporting or the like.

I'm kinda with your players TBH - "does the same stuff, but with different flavor text" doesn't sound like what I want out of a game.

[awa]

the trick isn't to make them do the same thing in different ways but make them do separate but equal things.

So for instance in my (home brew) games most casters are simply inferior at fighting tough human targets than warriors, but they have an edge when fighting supernatural foes.

So casters still feel like magic users but they dont overshadow warriors.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm kinda with your players TBH - "does the same stuff, but with different flavor text" doesn't sound like what I want out of a game.

Eh, it depends. The idea is the end result is the same, but how you achieve it is different. A rogue uses their lockpicks and other tools to get past a locked door, a mage uses a low-powered telekinesis spell to move about the mechanism.

In this case the idea is that magic is your tool. You're not doing exactly the same stuff, but the end result is in-scale with the mundanes. Using a different tool means you have different limitations, advantages, and loopholes, but at the end of the day you'll have the same rough list of things you're capable of. If the warrior can't fly and hit everybody in a 20ft radius neither can the wizard.

[John Campbell]

Another potential problem is players eating the miniatures when they're not supposed to (which doesn't usually happen with metal miniatures).

"Where did this army of orcs go?"

"Mmm... delicious!"

There was a while we used Starbursts for enemies, and Peppermint Patties for larger enemies, and people got to eat their kills and keep the hides to count coup. That was a Shadowrun game, with the pure-support roles (like decker) farmed out to NPC hirelings, though, and basically everyone in the party could be relied on to drop at least one enemy a round. And the time the gunbunny one-shotted the sea serpent that the GM had represented with a whole string of Peppermint Patties, and so got to eat the entire encounter, I was too relieved that it was dead to be concerned about Elroy getting all the candy.

This did once result in me almost popping a lead mini in my mouth, though.

Not always. Not every spell uses an attack roll.

However, a solution could be that if the target crits on their saving throw, they know exactly who cast it and what they were trying to cast. Might be grounds enough to give them advantage to attack the mage in question.

I don't mind critical fumbles too much, as long as they aren't life-threatening. 5% of the time, a god gets unlucky and can get hit by anyone, even a peasant child; saying that a warrior drops his weapon 5% of the time in active combat doesn't seem too unrealistic.

So, basically every time the critical fumbles debate comes up on this forum, I repeat this same thing:

I've been an SCA heavy fighter for more than twenty years. I've made I don't know how many thousands of "attack rolls" in that time. And in all that time, I've dropped my sword in combat once.

(I was fighting two-sword (my worst form), against an opponent also fighting two-sword, and came down with an offside cut at the same time he came up with a cross-body block, and instead of blocking my blade, his block caught my pommel and just stripped the sword out of my hand and sent it arcing across the room. We both just kind of stopped and stared at it. SCA swords are supposed to have lanyards to keep that kind of thing from happening, but I don't bother putting them on unless marshals nag me about it, because that's literally the only time, in going on 24 years, that I've ever had any need for one.)

Critical fumbles in D&D suck, and that DMs are so desperately uncreative about the results doesn't help. But that's only part of the problem. That their frequency increases with skill instead of decreasing is another part. That they preferentially screw the mundane, who's getting the short end of the stick to start with, is another part. They're awful and bad and no one should use them ever.

It's not so bad in a dice-pool system like Shadowrun, where fumbles only happen on all-1s, and the mages have to make rolls too.

The former part means that a raw beginner, rolling only one die, will fumble 1 time in 6, but someone with an average skill fumbles only 1 in 216, and a world-class 6 skill fumbles a mere 1 time in 46,656. Still less often if you're specifically focusing on the action, in the form of adding pool dice to it, and on top of that you can buy them off with Karma Pool.

The latter part means that the guys who are gods walking the earth to begin with aren't immune to totally screwing up manipulating the fabric of reality, so their already-unfair advantage doesn't get even more unfair.

My group used the Paizo critical hit/fumble decks for half of one combat one time, after which the DM literally threw them in the trash and retconned all of the effects.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Being honest about what genre you're playing in makes a big difference. In a game about realistic WWII soldiers, realism is important. In a game of fantastic heroes in a fantastic world, cinematic stunts that evoke legendary heroes are the realism of the world. D&D's underlying physics engine is much more attuned to the rule of cool than to the rule of the real world.

The problem is that D&D is simultaneously trying to simulate the fantasy universes of Conan the Barbarian and Dr. Strange while making both title characters viable character concepts.

I'm kinda with your players TBH - "does the same stuff, but with different flavor text" doesn't sound like what I want out of a game.

Wizards kill orcs with fire, rangers with arrows. Same stuff, different flavor, right? If you're not going to segregate the game into the part where Regdar can do something, the part where Mialee can do something, etc, you're going to have the "problem" of different classes doing basically the same thing.
I mean, yeah, the example given was "wizard rolls dice to unlock door" compared to "rogue rolls dice to unlock door," but the only ways to avoid that are to either invent overly-complex rules for unlocking doors or let one automatically unlock the door (and sadly, it's probably going to be the one who can already bend reality, not the one specialized in lockpicking).

[awa]

ive heard one good idea to balance knock spell where using it is about as loud as just smashing the door to bits so that open locks is still the go to skill for sneaking.

That said i haven't actually ever played a game where unlocking doors quietly or otherwise was ever vital it simply never came up.

[John Campbell]

ive heard one good idea to balance knock spell where using it is about as loud as just smashing the door to bits so that open locks is still the go to skill for sneaking.

5E does that, thus making the spell worthless, like pretty much everything else in the spell list that isn't direct damage.

The thing is, knock doesn't need to be balanced. If the wizard wants to spend one of their sharply-limited spells per day to be able to do once what the rogue can do for free all day, every day, that's their lookout.

What needs to be balanced is the cheapness and ease of making or buying a magic item that lets you do it fifty times without touching your actual spell slots.