New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Vetting some house rules

    My group (we rotate DMing) has developed some house rules because we wanted to make character creation a bit more interesting for us. We had fallen into a bit of a rut where characters tended to be very very similar to each other. Every campaign, we ended up with four characters with DEX between 16 and 20 and STR and INT dumped to 8. Every once and a while a Wizard would show up or a Barbarian, but mostly STR and INT were group-wide dump stats. It was often comical. Several years of parties of weakling dummies made us think about changing up the rules a bit so we can incentivize more balanced characters (our group tends to optimize the heck out of their characters, which leads to the min/max mess we created). Mostly these rules make STR and INT much more interesting and DEX a bit less interesting. We cobbled these rules together by looking through various boards and stealing from 3.5. We ran one campaign with these rules (and some others that didn't live through the first campaign...like marking) and liked them a lot. They definitely pushed us to more variation among the characters and much more balanced stat distributions. We thought it was time to drop the rules in GitP and see if we could benefit from your collective experience.

    What do you guys think? Of course we know the STR v DEX debate is exhausted. It just happens that for us, that debate kinda naturally settled into GWM vs else, which got old. What giant pit are we going to run into that we might not have foreseen? Have we excessively nerfed a class? Have we made one OP? {Notes about our party: We generally never advance much past level 10. No one enjoys combat healing.}

    ColonelHero's House Rules

    1. DEX does not add damage to attacks. Instead, STR is added to finesse weapon and ranged weapon attacks (which still use DEX to hit). (Note: This does not affect the Monk class feature Martial Arts).

    • Weapons with the Loading property do not benefit from +STR to damage. (Note that Crossbow Expert does not remove this property of these weapons).

    • Revised weapon damage:

    i. Light crossbow: 2d6
    ii. Blowgun: 1d6
    iii. Hand crossbow: 1d10
    iv. Heavy crossbow: 2d8

    2. INT is added to Initiative instead of DEX.

    3. Add INT bonus (+/-) to the number of skills a character may choose from their class list.

    4. Add INT bonus to the number of languages known. Characters with an INT of 8 (or lower) are illiterate.

    5. All characters gain a STR bonus (+/-) to Intimidate

    6. All characters gain an INT bonus (+/-) to Thieves’ Tools

    7. Investigation is the searching/trap-finding skill. “Passive investigation” simply means “I am unhurried and assuming average rolls”.

    8. Monster knowledge checks can be used to identify enemy traits. DC (10+CR) rounded up grants HP, AC, vulnerabilities, and immunities. DC (15+CR) grants detailed knowledge. Untrained rolls have disadvantage barring relevance to character background.

    • Arcana - Use this skill to discover more about elemental creatures, creatures of pure magic, arcane creations, and creatures of other planes

    • History - Use this skill to learn more about creatures that play prominent roles throughout history. For example, goblins, kobolds, and most other humanoid races play significant roles in history.

    • Nature - Use this skill to learn more about creatures tied directly to nature. Most often, this means animals (wolves, bats, etc.) but it could also be tied to druidic creations, or guardians of nature.

    • Religion - Use this skill to learn more about creatures of religious creation. Servants of deities, undead, and other holy or unholy beings would be described with this skill.

    • Survival is never a knowledge check.

    9. Armor:

    • Heavy Armor always imposes a 5 foot penalty to speed but the weight of armor is not factored into encumbrance.

    • Chainmail requires CON 12 (instead of STR 13). This requirement can be ignored at the cost of a disadvantage on CON saves.

    • Splint and Plate require CON 14 (instead of STR 15). These requirements can be ignored at the cost of a disadvantage on CON saves.

    • Armor that gives disadvantage on stealth also gives disadvantage on Athletics checks to swim and any creatures who sleeps in that kind of armor gains a level of exhaustion

    10. +X magic weapons and armor are enchanted with removable enchantments. The enchantment can be removed and applied to another weapon or armor) with an Arcana check of DC (10+2X). The check may be attempted once per long rest.

    11. Class Changes (note that these rules assume no multiclass option):

    • Wizards begin with no class skills before the INT bonus.

    • Rogues gain the following abilities at level 1:

    i. Backstabber: The rogue gains a bonus of +DEX to melee weapon damage.

    ii. Scoundrel: The rogue gains a +CHA bonus to initiative.

    12. All characters gain a free feat at character creation (variant humans gain two).

    13. Healing Surges:

    • As an action, a character can use a healing surge and spend up to half his or her Hit Dice. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character's Constitution modifier. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.

    • A character who uses a healing surge can't do so again until he or she finishes a short or long rest.

    • A character regains all spent Hit Dice at the end of a long rest. With a short rest, a character regains Hit Dice equal to his or her level divided by four (minimum of one die).

    14. Reaction: Delay.

    • As a reaction you may choose to delay. By choosing to delay, you take no action at your next initiative count and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. Choosing to delay ends any positive conditions that are turn based.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Nov 2018

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Not to sound rude, but honestly none of these house rules sound good. There’s a lot of unnecessary complexity and some of them seem kind of random.

    My personal perspective on house rules is they should be made with a specific problem to be addressed. Several of yours don’t have that. The random damage buff to crossbows, characters with int 8 (which isn’t even that low!) being illiterate? Why?

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    If the problem of your group is a lack of character variety, you don't need houserules. The players just need to create more varied characters.

    Also, the armor rules make Str builds *less* appealing, not more.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2017

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    One of the cool things about D&D is that it is collaborative story telling built up over months or years, so as an outsider seeing these rules you and your group have developed, it's overwhelming. I like the ideas behind quite a few rules here but I don't think I'm ready to implement any of these rules with my group (probably we'll end up making our own set over time).
    If at first you don't succeed, fail spectacularly.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    1) Making Dex Worse

    Why? It's a good stat, but Strength achieves more damage and better AC (so long as they have heavy armor).

    2) Making Int Better

    I'm okay with this change.

    3) Making Int Mandatory

    Hell no. If you want more than 1 Skill for most classes, you CAN'T be below average Intelligence, and skills are useful enough that Int is way too valuable.

    4) Making Int Better (And Punishing Players Who Like Below Average Intelligence)

    Adding Int to languages known is fine. Making 8 Int players illiterate is not. Remember-8 Int isn't rock-feth dumb. It's a little slow.

    5) Making Strength Better For Intimidate

    No. Your 16 Strength Ranger isn't any better at intimidating a dragon because he's got a little muscle.

    6) Int To Thieves' Tools

    Seems unneeded.

    7) Investigation Changes

    Okay, seems reasonable.

    8) Monster Knowledge

    So, a CR 0 Cranium Rat is DC 10, but the well known Red Dragon Zyzferus who lives on top of the mountain a few miles away is DC 27? That makes no sense.

    9) Feth Armor

    Heavy Armor slowing you down is dumb.
    Changing Strength to Constitution is okay, I suppose.
    But disadvantage on swimming will either 1) not come up or 2) be unneededly cruel.

    10) Making Artifacts Easy

    Goes against the style of 5E, but won't break anything.

    11) Fixing Your Own Mistakes

    Feth Wizards, am I right? They deserve to be bad!

    And breaking an earlier established rule to make Rogues back to par shows IT'S A BAD RULE.

    12) Free Feat

    Yeah okay.

    13) Faster Healing

    Okay. Might make healing a lil' too easy, but that's a reasonable thing to want.

    14) Delay

    Okay. Seems fine.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    At a glance, it's hard for me to see if any one class totally gets ruined by this or that. But, these house rules are interesting, at the very least.

    Although your group may be compelled to try some or all of these things to tailor a unique environment and encourage variety in characters, I would feel remiss not to recommend you consider an alternative: why not simply try a round of random character generation? When people venture out of their comfort zone, I think they often achieve new perspective on what's fun and exciting. Suddenly being dumped into a one-shot as an Eldritch Knight or something might make your players voluntarily try a new approach to their class decisions, and put greater emphasis on STR and/or INT. Maybe what keeps your players choosing the same things is that they haven't found enough excuse to branch outward, and gain an appreciation for other races, classes and backgrounds.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    But disadvantage on swimming will either 1) not come up or 2) be unneededly cruel.
    I actually use that one in my current PbP game, though that's pirate campaign. It, of course, also applies to NPCs, so throwing armored opponents overboard is valid tactic. And it'll (propably, you never know with my players) stop being relevant after Water Walk becomes available at level 5.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    The golden rule - Keep it simple

    If you don't like GWM just don't use it. Feats are optional for a reason. Changing around the way that weapons work is a very complicated solution to that problem.

    Adding complexity to the game through house rules just bogs things down. House rules like these are rarely worth it.
    If you are trying to abuse the game; Don't. And you're probably wrong anyway.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zhorn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Space Australia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    If the goal is to get characters with more varied stat selection and less of a dex heavy party; then I think these house rules are an overly complicate solution.

    I'm all for house rules, and I hate bad-wrong-fun argument, but a lot of these read as adding needless complexity.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2018

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    All the people hang on the added complexity, remember that these rules, as stated in the OP, are intended for a party full of min-maxers. Adding complexity makes things more interesting for most players with that mind set. Having more things to think about and figure out is what min-maxing is all about, finding the best way to milk the most out of your build. Strength builds under RAW do have their benefits, but rarely are they much superior to Dex builds. Sure they can get +1 AC (unless of course you invest a feat, at which point you can match it with medium armor). As for damage a SS build can basically match any GWM build. The extra +1-4 (when including crits) average from the die roll is a drop in the bucket compared to the +15 you can get from ability mod and feat.

    So I would say, your house rules aren't for most people but at a table like yours they give a min-maxer more to think about. I don't see anything in there that is unbalancing. Especially with multiclassing off the table. The rogue buff would be a huge boost to rogue dips if multiclassing was allowed so with that rule multiclassing basically has to be off the table.

    I like a lot of the intelligence changes though I would personally set illiteracy at 7 or below instead of at 8. Though if you use a standard point buy that prevents it from every occurring in a PC barrig something like Feeblemind.

    I'll try to come back and give my opinion on each individual rule, as well as their interactionsbwith each other, when I have more time.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    I like using int for initiative, but apart from that I'm not a fan of the changes here.

    At my table, low int is a roleplay penalty: people treat your character like a dumbass. It doesn't have mechanical implications, but then again the roleplay penalties seem to be enough to keep my players from dumping it, and when they do they lean in.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    JakOfAllTirades's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    The Summer Court
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    None of these pass the "Is this absolutely necessary?" test for house rules.

    D&D 5E isn't broken. There's no need to fix it.
    HEY, WTF HAPPENED TO MY AVATAR?


  13. - Top - End - #13
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by LaserFace View Post
    At a glance, it's hard for me to see if any one class totally gets ruined by this or that. But, these house rules are interesting, at the very least.

    Although your group may be compelled to try some or all of these things to tailor a unique environment and encourage variety in characters, I would feel remiss not to recommend you consider an alternative: why not simply try a round of random character generation? When people venture out of their comfort zone, I think they often achieve new perspective on what's fun and exciting. Suddenly being dumped into a one-shot as an Eldritch Knight or something might make your players voluntarily try a new approach to their class decisions, and put greater emphasis on STR and/or INT. Maybe what keeps your players choosing the same things is that they haven't found enough excuse to branch outward, and gain an appreciation for other races, classes and backgrounds.
    I completely agree with the random character generation. It will force you to take on a new perspective if you're "unlucky" with the dice, and that's a good thing. I know I'll always love being the human barbarian or the elven archer, but when I roll a tiefling monk it gives me reason to think about how that works. How that character got there. It stimulates my brain in a way I like, as PC or DM, viewing things from a different point of view.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Design Goals:
    More interesting mechanical character creation
    Make previously popular builds less popular, and previously unpopular builds more viable
    Increase the usefulness of Strength and Intelligence

    Questions
    Overall opinions
    Any non-obvious flaws?
    Did any one class get hit harder than the rest?
    Did any one class get buffed too much?

    Notes:
    These rules have been playtested
    level 1-10 only.

    ColonelHero's House Rules
    1. No Dex for damage.
    2. Loading Property gets no ability modifier damage bonus, but a bigger damage dice to compensate
    3. Int for initative instead of Dex
    4. +/-Int skills and languages at character creation
    5. Intimidate ability checks use both your Charisma AND Strength modifiers
    6. Thieves' Tools ability checks use both your Dexterity AND Intelligence
    7. Investigation used for searching. Passive Perception redefined as 'Take 10'
    8. Arcana, History, Nature and Religion are Monster Knowledge checks as per 4e
    9. Armor that gives disadvantage to stealth also gives disadvantage on Athletics checks
    10. Transfer Enchantment works as per 4e
    11. Minor Class changes to compensate for previous houserules
    12. Bonus Feat at level 1
    13-14. Healing Surges and Second Wind variant rules, as per 4e
    14. Delay is a reaction, as per 4e

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I like what you got going on. Seeing how you already playtested these rules and enjoyed them also tells me a lot. I'm glad you and your friends found a way to tailor the experience to your exact needs and preferences!

    How did you like using the Second Wind and Healing Surge rule variants? Is half remaining hit dice a good number?
    How did the change to loading weapons affect their use, i'm curious ^^

    I see you liked some of the 4e mechanics. Go ahead and check out my dying rules, they are heavily influenced by 4e as well (see sig)

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2019

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    I would agree strength and intelligence dont get the girls like charisma does in terms of being stats being picked to dump, this isn't necessarily a problem. But if you like characters to occassionally wish 'If I was just a little stronger/smarter' or be rewarded for being slightly stronger smarter I can understand these rules, but I'd agree with the others, you dont want to go into alot of complexity/work for something that should be in the background once you start playing the game.

    For strength, you might want to throw in more situations where they need to make athletics checks or being stricter with using acrobatics vs athletics. When groups need to make athletics checks those that dump strength and dont have proficiency they will need to burn spell slots or have some other plan to make up for their lack of athleticism. This doesn't necessarily make a strength based character mandatory but making them wish they could jump wide gaps and climb a long way up a wall with some rope makes the strongman characters better, its not like you have to set the DCs really high either so its good for encouraging a moderate investment/respect for the strength stat. Likewise being ok with crazy feats of athleticism might also be something you want to be ok with.

    For intelligence I was looking at a bonus proficiency system like yourself so I'll pitch it to you in its current state. I'd be interested to see what you make of it. For intelligence I agree there isn't much it offers characters who just like to be above average intelligence, but dont want to specifically invest in skills that make them knowledgeable (and you dont really have group intelligence checks either).

    Firstly for 9 and below, negative intelligence modifiers are added to untrained skill checks. Being dumb lends to undermining yourself, but if you're trained in something you won't hinder yourself either. I find this less punishing than removing proficiencies and less messy.

    For 12 above, a positive intelligence modifier gives you bonus proficiencies like you're suggesting, but I have costs and possibly more options in mind and I have the bonus languages part folded in. Essentially you have a number of points to spend equal to your intelligence modifier.

    For 1 point you get an additional proficiency with an individual thing of your choice if you have any necessary requirements (proficient in medium armour to learn to wear plate armour), so stuff like tools, instruments, weapons and armour. You can also get additional languages.

    For 2 points you buy a 'broad' proficiency in weapons or armours, again if you meet requirements e.g. proficient in simple weapons to get martial weapons. You can also get skill proficiencies.

    For 3 points you can buy an additional saving throw proficiency. This one is the crazier of the bunch, but I'm still mulling this one over as I think 4 is too much to be interesting compared to other options.

    These kind of options mesh well with the downtime idea of paying to be trained to gain new proficiencies or adding a little spice here and there in your character. My main concern with making this was avoiding wizards/artificers suddenly becoming pseudo rogues so I'm still thinking it over to make it fun for a wizard and a fighter say with a 12 in intelligence.

    As to your other houserules I think you're probably putting too much work into tweaking things, but as long as you have fun. But I dont think INT to initiative works for me from a conceptual point of view.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    5) Making Strength Better For Intimidate

    No. Your 16 Strength Ranger isn't any better at intimidating a dragon because he's got a little muscle.
    So I agree with your other points, but I've always liked the variant rule "Skills with different abilities" and consider it as integral to my games as feats. In that section it explicitly calls out a fighter using Str to intimidate instead of Cha. I'm curious why you don't like it.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Thanks for all the awesome feedback in one day. You guys have really shown how helpful this forum is. As many of you sussed out, these add complexity, but mostly in ways that our party enjoys (character creation). To give more context: Our group is comprised entirely of parents aged 40-50. We tend to play late at night while the kids and spouses are sleeping. We exclusively play published adventures (none of us has time to prepare adventures). We also are almost always shorthanded, so players almost always end up playing multiple characters.

    When we playtested the rules, we found that anything that added complexity to the game during character creation we really loved (it is a group project because characters have to be really synergized in order to be interchangeable). During actual combat we lost rules that added complexity to the actual game (rather than adding complexity to the character sheet). So marking, even though we loved it in 4e, had to go. Delay stayed because my group has more or less always wanted to be able to rearrange themselves in initiative anyway, and Healing Surge stayed because 4e kinda wired our brains that way. The other changes really only meant that the DM has to adjust damage and initiative for monsters on the fly, and that has been relatively simple (in the Strahd adventure anyhow).

    We have tried random character generation recently. It was fun as a break, but a big part of this group is the min/maxing of the party, and that part of our play was essentially turned off and we missed it.

    Changes we have for sure already made because of this thread:

    1. A negative INT bonus does not REDUCE your skills below the baseline. We agree, skills are too important to lose. We haven't playtested a 8 INT character with these rules yet, so we haven't noticed how much that would suck, especially now that a bunch of the knowledge skills are much more valuable (they get used constantly now instead of being largely ignored by our group). We also removed the illiterate part.

    2. The STR/INT bonus to intimidate and theives tools was too complex, so we lost it. We'll just revert to the PHB rule of subbing INT or STR in on the fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post

    Also, the armor rules make Str builds *less* appealing, not more.
    Yeah, we thought that making STR the only damage stat might have made it too valuable. So we shifted armor to CON. This is in particular one we worried about because CON was already so good. This one is definitely on the chopping block. We'd definitely like more feedback here.

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post

    9) Feth Armor

    Heavy Armor slowing you down is dumb.
    Changing Strength to Constitution is okay, I suppose.
    But disadvantage on swimming will either 1) not come up or 2) be unneededly cruel.
    The heavy armor slows you down thing is a port from 3.5 that just kinda stuck with us I guess. The swimming thing has indeed never come up and I guess we never realized how much it could potentially suck now that classes like Cleric and Paladin and Fighter are more likely to be wearing heavy armor. This one is definitely on the chopping block.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post

    How did you like using the Second Wind and Healing Surge rule variants? Is half remaining hit dice a good number?
    How did the change to loading weapons affect their use, i'm curious ^^

    I see you liked some of the 4e mechanics. Go ahead and check out my dying rules, they are heavily influenced by 4e as well (see sig)
    Wow, you have correctly interpreted our rules and laid them out in an easy to grok way. I'm a bit embarrassed you did it better than me. Yeah, we definitely took what we liked from 3.5 and 4e in making the rules. A lot of these "variants" are just 3.5 and 4e rules. I'll definitely check out your dying rules in a second and then show them to the group!

    The Healing Surge rule has seen two uses that make it worth having: a) one of our players just cannot get out of the 4e headspace that you are less functional while injured and really can't get into the 5e yo-yo headspace and occassionally likes to "top up" without using a healing spell. This really helps that player. b) our parties typically only have one character with Healing Word prepared. The Healing Surge rule helps that character stay upright.

    The half remaining hit dice thing has not been a noticeable restriction. The party just kinda agrees that you shouldn't be as good at healing in a fight as you are while you are resting.

    The effect of the changes to ranged weapons so far has been to: a) get players using cantrips and not bows/crossbows before level 5 (where we live a lot, as I said above), b) encourage melee builds. So far no one has dumped STR and opted for a crossbow (which we wanted to be at least a little viable, which is why we made the changes to them). This might just be my group though. Bows were always preferred over crossbows anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galithar View Post

    I'll try to come back and give my opinion on each individual rule, as well as their interactionsbwith each other, when I have more time.
    Yes please.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakinbandw View Post
    So I agree with your other points, but I've always liked the variant rule "Skills with different abilities" and consider it as integral to my games as feats. In that section it explicitly calls out a fighter using Str to intimidate instead of Cha. I'm curious why you don't like it.
    I'm fine with your 20 Strength Barbarian crushing a table with his bare hands to Intimidate a group of drunkards at a bar.

    But it should be SITUATIONAL-doing the same thing won't impress an Ogre, for instance.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by TwrLrd View Post

    For intelligence I was looking at a bonus proficiency system like yourself so I'll pitch it to you in its current state. I'd be interested to see what you make of it. For intelligence I agree there isn't much it offers characters who just like to be above average intelligence, but dont want to specifically invest in skills that make them knowledgeable (and you dont really have group intelligence checks either).

    Firstly for 9 and below, negative intelligence modifiers are added to untrained skill checks. Being dumb lends to undermining yourself, but if you're trained in something you won't hinder yourself either. I find this less punishing than removing proficiencies and less messy.

    For 12 above, a positive intelligence modifier gives you bonus proficiencies like you're suggesting, but I have costs and possibly more options in mind and I have the bonus languages part folded in. Essentially you have a number of points to spend equal to your intelligence modifier.

    For 1 point you get an additional proficiency with an individual thing of your choice if you have any necessary requirements (proficient in medium armour to learn to wear plate armour), so stuff like tools, instruments, weapons and armour. You can also get additional languages.

    For 2 points you buy a 'broad' proficiency in weapons or armours, again if you meet requirements e.g. proficient in simple weapons to get martial weapons. You can also get skill proficiencies.

    For 3 points you can buy an additional saving throw proficiency. This one is the crazier of the bunch, but I'm still mulling this one over as I think 4 is too much to be interesting compared to other options.

    These kind of options mesh well with the downtime idea of paying to be trained to gain new proficiencies or adding a little spice here and there in your character. My main concern with making this was avoiding wizards/artificers suddenly becoming pseudo rogues so I'm still thinking it over to make it fun for a wizard and a fighter say with a 12 in intelligence.

    .
    Hmmm. I'm definitely going to run this by my group. Thanks.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Hearth

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    If the problem of your group is a lack of character variety, you don't need houserules. The players just need to create more varied characters.

    Also, the armor rules make Str builds *less* appealing, not more.
    Not to be rude Jack, but 90% of the comments I see you make here are tearing others ideas down without providing any sort of constructive suggestion. If you don't have something to add by the way of constructive criticism, why do you feel the need to tear other's ideas down? If you don't like it, don't use it.
    *steps down from soap box*
    As for the OP, I like a lot of these, particularly the Int ones. Int to Initiative and Int for bonus skill proficiencies sounds like a wonderful way to make Int useful outside of casting, and I've always liked the idea of making Int skill checks viable in combat for players who don't metagame their stat block knowledge. Same goes for Str. I've also always felt that Monks should be good at grappling as a mystic martial artist, but been hesitant to take away the most common use of the only Str skill. And I'm also tired of playing high Dex low Str characters, but aside from a Barbarian's rage abilities being tied to Str specifically, there really isn't any build that I feel is optimized with maxed out Str and not maxed Dex. As is, Anything Str can do, Dex can do better (except Grappling, as noted above).
    "I may be a Hobgoblin, but the real mythical creature I'm playing is an Ethical Billionaire"

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    I think adjusting the number of skills might be going too far, however I don't mind the illiteracy thing or the Int change to initiative.

    Actually the illiteracy thing could be setting dependant. If we are trying to approximate a medieval European flavor (or really anything other than a modern-mass-education-is-widespread-setting), then illiteracy should be very common. (Of course this might not be appropriate for something like Ebberon or even the Forgotten Realms.)

    Perhaps a better approach would be to make literacy a tool proficiency. Any character could take it at the expense of one of their other tools. It's not that the average or slightly below average character is incapable of reading, it's just a matter of "where would they have learned that?"

    The average person didn't go to school and neither did their parents. There is a good reason why old signs didn't have words on them.

    The argument against a realistic literacy rule (and possibly the majority of these rules) is that it makes things a bit of a headache. Eg. certain puzzles, scrolls, letters and other messages wouldn't work for certain characters and that just doesn't improve the game for the players or the DM.
    Last edited by Vorpalchicken; 2019-08-24 at 11:00 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Couldn't ya'll just agree to make different characters?

    I don't get how the rules actually help you create different characters, by making the characters you normally build bad? That seems like a poor reason for a rule.

    Make some XP rewards for players who make something "new". Introduce plots and stories that lean towards character-types ya'll don't normally make.

    Not to be harsh, but the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is you, your group, the characters ya'll make, and you clearly realize it. So why not just...change that?
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2016

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Couldn't ya'll just agree to make different characters?

    I don't get how the rules actually help you create different characters, by making the characters you normally build bad? That seems like a poor reason for a rule.

    Make some XP rewards for players who make something "new". Introduce plots and stories that lean towards character-types ya'll don't normally make.

    Not to be harsh, but the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is you, your group, the characters ya'll make, and you clearly realize it. So why not just...change that?
    I don't think that is harsh. That is a totally valid alternative, especially if we were arguing that our rules were somehow objectively better for everyone (which we are not). Without talking to my group, I think this is exactly the point of these house rules. We are adapting the rule set to fit our natural predilections. It's easier and more fun for us to change the rules to fit the players than change the players to fit the rules. We're asking all y'all to vet the changes (and you have!) so we don't make a dumb balance mistake or cause problems for ourselves. So far the board's feedback has already been invaluable.

    We are always going to make characters as powerful as we can within the constraints we have AND we as a group want the costs of the MIN side of the MIN/MAX equation to be a bit higher than it currently is, so we changed the constraints on character creation to achieve that goal. We already are seeing STR builds we never saw, we are seeing INT valued as a tertiary stat, and, in one game where we chose to use the standard array, what to do with that 8 was a huge challenge (as we like it). In every game previously, for nearly every character, DEX was either a primary stat or a secondary. It doesn't automatically have that status anymore. So knowing the players will push the boundaries of the constraints no matter what means we wanted to futz with the constraints.
    Last edited by ColonelHero; 2019-08-24 at 11:53 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Another solution for making Str less likely for being dumped is adjusting the challenges the party runs into, favoring high Str/Int checks and saves.
    High speed wagon chases where Athletics checks have to made to not fall off the sides.

    History and religion checks when interacting with unusual foreign religions for not offending the powerful strangers you are negotiating with.

    Those are what comes to mind off the top of my head. And to keep casters from dominating, if you are worried about that, remember: a) spells are resources, so if you use too many too soon, you wont have them later, b) except for sorcerors, spells are obvious when being cast and observors should react as such, especially in social situations, and c) anti-magic fields and chaos-magic fields are a thing.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    I'm fine with your 20 Strength Barbarian crushing a table with his bare hands to Intimidate a group of drunkards at a bar.

    But it should be SITUATIONAL-doing the same thing won't impress an Ogre, for instance.
    Thats’s what higher DCs are for. Intimidating the local bar riff raft might be a DC10, the Ogre might be DC15, and a dragon might be DC30.

    Ogres are a good example of a creature that can be intimidated by shows of force, rather than more subtle forms of intimidation, since they’re too dumb to understand the latter type of threats.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Astral Seal!

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hail Tempus View Post
    Thats’s what higher DCs are for. Intimidating the local bar riff raft might be a DC10, the Ogre might be DC15, and a dragon might be DC30.

    Ogres are a good example of a creature that can be intimidated by shows of force, rather than more subtle forms of intimidation, since they’re too dumb to understand the latter type of threats.
    I don't agree with making Strength a universal bonus to Intimidation. In some situations yes, but not ALL situations.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
    Show

    Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
    Show

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    I don't agree with making Strength a universal bonus to Intimidation. In some situations yes, but not ALL situations.
    I agree. Flexing your muscles works in some situations, like when trying to bully an orc, but not others, like if you’re trying to intimidate a powerful noble.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    I would like to point out adding CHA to initative is a rouge subclass feature, and I think it should'n t be added or give another benefit to swashbucklers like immunity to surprise.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hail Tempus View Post
    I agree. Flexing your muscles works in some situations, like when trying to bully an orc, but not others, like if you’re trying to intimidate a powerful noble.
    I would let the target choose strength or charisma for an opposed Intimidation check.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Vetting some house rules

    Okay, so your stated goal here is to bring STR and INT up a bit and bring DEX down a bit. Going off that and what you've posted already I recommend:

    1: Initiative bonus is INT rather than DEX
    2: At INT 14+ learn one additional language, and at INT 16+ gain one additional tool proficiency
    3: Use more alternate Ability Checks like STR (intimidate)*
    4: INT checks can be made for creature knowledge, with the DM picking a DC as usual
    5: Bonus feat at level 1
    6: DMG Healing Surge rules (can adjust as you go)
    7: Use reaction to Delay your turn
    8: Enforce carry capacity

    This technically isn't a houserule at all but most people never bother doing this. Investigation for traps is actually the default too, but most people (and many adventure writers) mistakenly categorize too much as Perception.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •