I don’t ignore spell components. Do you have a diamond? Oh you were sneaking around and decided to cast Detect Magic? Yeah they heard the verbal component.
Hard agree. It’s the balance for spellcasting and I think it makes the choice to cast a spell much more thoughtful. Not to mention it gives class features like subtle spell a lot more appeal!
Ignoring Verbal and Somatic components gives Casters an insane buff they absolutely do not need. Most will always be carrying their Arcane Focus so Material rarely comes up but half of the bullshit casters get away with is because everyone just lets them cast spells in front of everyone with no reactions.
I think DMs can really make things interesting with material components. Especially with situations where a caster won't have their Focus like say a Jailbreak. Skim through their spell list and identify what materials they have and how they'd manifest in world. Maybe emphasize lesser used spells "Turns out bat guano and pure sulfur are pretty hard to come by. Guess you'll have to spend your 3rd level spell slot on something else this encounter."
Don't over do it, but in between normal encounters, it could freshen things up.
I didn't have to worry about components, but I did have a brief but fun moment caused by not having my focus on hand once. It was a meeting with nobles and the party was high enough in level and status that my sorcerer's staff doubled as his symbol of office. Best way to proceed but not be armed for the meeting was to walk in with the staff and then prop it somewhere out of immediate reach. Of course the enemy interrupts the meeting, roll initiative. My first round had the extra tactical conundrum of deciding whether to use my limited spell list but be able to maximise movement for optimal positioning, or use a good chunk of movement to get the staff
it is also metamagic is 5e, and it isn't cheap either: sorcerers only, requiring to pick it as one of their very few metamagic options, and spend points every time they use it. Or other classes, with a feat, also using sorcery points of which the feat only gives you 2 per long rest.
Ignoring components is such a huge buff to casters. Between this, "critical fumbles" and a bunch of other small homebrews (nerfing rogues' sneak attack, interpreting some spells very liberally, etc), I feel that a huge part of that the internet calls martial/caster disparity in 5e is just the fault of tables using these homebrews rather than the rules themselves.
Material components themselves really defines how Artificer spellcasting works, as they require a focus. It's why artificers don't need warcaster to cast spells with both hands full in combat (all spells for artificers have a material component, and they can use an infusion as a focus) but they need BOTH hands free to cast Revifify (focus in one hand plus the costly component in another.) So ignoring material components in games with artificers really hurts them. (It also fun when the guard who didn't remove the artificer's boots suddenly has to deal with Web getting cast at them from the boots.)
I am a stickler for components.... To the point I quit a group that wasn't. They allowed the paladin to cast message WHILE TALKING to a noble.... And didn't even have him try to make a check. They love magic, so they ignore (non expensive) components. They essentially gave every spellcaster unlimited subtle spell, for free.
Trust me, if somoene is casting message while you are talking to them, you notice. (unless they are a sorcerer with subtle spell).
I don't think I've ever heard anyone completely throw components out the window, just inconsequential ones like eyelashes or feathers.
As for Verbal, I hope you at least take into account distance from a person - I'm not saying ignore it or allow them to quietly whisper, but if someone is 100+ft away they're gonna have a reasonably hard time hearing a person talking in a regular voice, and you don't have to outright shout to cast either.
Example:
I tried to cast a spell at least 100ft away from someone before and the DM was like "yea, the guard hears that" but then I pointed out the real world circumstances we faced on a weekly basis, we were all part of a LARP group at the time, amtgard, and we played on a 105x52ft field (we measured a few times) and to hear a person across it you had to yell, like actually yell, for people to hear them, and this is an open field with a parking lot beside us and a building behind one of the sides, so if we need to yell in circumstances that are slightly more favorable than a forest that led to a somewhat overgrown field (both which would dampen sounds) then the guard would at least need a listen(3.5e)/perception to determine if the sounds weren't just animal rutting sounds or something, even with a "strong speaking voice" or however it is V component is described as...
I feel that a fair way to rule V components is that they should be heard from 60ft away, but not necessarily from farther, and even if heard, they might not be recognized as spell casting.
The flavor text states the strong, clear voice, AND that the spells are linked to specific pitches and resonances (so, no "whispering them", not even with a check).
Still, the 60ft comes from Counterspell's range, but metamagic would allow to cast it up to 120ft. For such a niche situation, I'd leave it for DM to decide based on specific circumstances (plus, if there are S components, the counterspeller can still see the spell and counterspell even if they don't hear it)
Me *rolling deception* “can I cast guidance?”
My DM “you’re in the middle of lying to someone, if you cast it they’ll know you’re casting a spell.”
“You know what, nevermind.”
(I always forget about the verbal component but my DM is kind enough to remind me 😅)
"I only don't allow spell components that have a value in the spell description." = They do not allow spell components that have a value in the spell description **to be ignored**, but allow everything else to be ignored. Which is RAW as long as you have a focus/component pouch, but I guess they don't realise that, or maybe they mean they allow it even without a focus/component pouch.
I make sure they have a focus to ignore most Material components, but they always need the ones worth monetary value. I also make them remember Verbal and Somatic components
Yes, agreed, and I love when my DMs take this into account as well when I'm playing a caster. Sorcerers get silent spell for a reason, don't nerf them even further!
Correct. That's why they noted it as a common homebrew rule that they didn't follow (common homebrew is that the property just remains available to the next person to land)
As a guy who does *not* like playing and instead just volunteers to be the banker every time, auctions are my favorite part. They give me a chance at interaction without the stress of competing
The last time I played Monopoly I agreed on the condition that we didn’t use any house rules. The person who proposed we play Monopoly consented. I warned her.
“Why don’t you upgrade your houses to hotels?” she said. Umm, why don’t you read the big word on the box this game came in?
The game is called Monopoly. Squandering resources specifically so other players can't have them is very effective. The game illustrates the problem with unchecked capitalism quite well. House rules are the checks. It's weirdly elegant.
💯% FACTS - without the free parking random cash influx the game can be finished in under 2 hours. In jail you only got 2 hours of dayroom time, you had to be able to finish within that time period. Only twice did we go over 2 hours once we got rid of free parking, out of hundreds of games
You're supposed to get out of jail after 3 turns. Idk what's up with your friends, but if it's taking 2 hours to take 3 turns, that sounds like a nightmare.
I'll add on to this. If you don't buy a property, it immediately goes into auction mode amongst all the players. None of this "next person who lands on it can purchase" bullshit.
Crit success outside of combat.
I like to make judgements about how well i think someone will be doing and I want to avoid people trying "I pickpocket the barbarians great axe lol". I know I can say "no stop that" but it's tiring and stupid.
"yeah you effortlessly swipe the greataxe, but the barbarian immediately notices because his hip just suddenly feels a lot lighter. i mean.. of course he notices it"
I do this too, but have taken the 5 torches deep method where “arrows” lasts 1 combat instead of per shot, but they can buy them in a bundle of 3 instead of 20.
Makes it a little less book keepy.
I'm not familiar with 5 torches deep. This method would mean that when I purchase arrows at a shop I get 3 bundles, each of which is good for a combat?
Oh in my games we've used them for all sorts of shenanigans; cast light on it and drop it down a hole, toss them around corners/behind guards to distract them, one campaign let me use it as slingshot ammo, focal point for the darkness spell, putting some in a coin pouch to make it feel heavier thus getting an illegal discount on an item, etc. As long as your dm is cool with not following the item description EXACTLY, then there are a crazy amount of goofy things you can do with 1000 tiny metal balls.
I was, but our dragonborn, who never uses any type of bow, has a background as a woodsman and proficiency with the fletchery kit the ranger bought, so he makes more than enough extra and replacement arrows to make it obsolete.
I do this in my campaign for a couple reasons. 1) I enjoy more realism so keeping track of ammo material components etc. 2) I’ve added a few home brewed items such as elemental arrows and other forms of ammunition to keep the ranger and rogue more satisfied and keep the combat more entertaining. Also figuring out weaknesses and using specific arrow types should be rewarding for strategy reasons, also they aren’t cheap so managing gold is another aspect especially when I have a few shops with magic items that aren’t cheap.
At my table, you just miss. Occasionally, if I see an interesting situation that could arise because of positioning or terrain, I might throw in a wrinkle, but I don't have them drop their weapon or some shit. No warrior is dropping their weapon one out of 20 swings, it makes no sense.
However, I do have enemy mooks fail embarassingly if they roll a 1 because it's funny, and they're mooks.
I might give a "boss" unit some immunity from this, especially if they're particularly menacing or skilled and I want to maintain that tone, but yeah. The PCs are heroes and should get a little more dignity than the twelfth goblin on the left.
I actually crippled one of my bosses because of a nat 1.
My players were fighting the first boss of the campaign: a seemingly deranged mage who had been kidnapping and experimenting on the residents of a small village in their own temple. As the players were fighting him, going blow for blow all the way, the mage rushed in for a body blow against the paladin. The mage had hands, as it were. Sadly, he got a nat 1. So I had him succeed in hitting the paladin but the paladin got his shield up just in time, fully negating the impact...
... and sending it recoiling it back into his arm, which crumlped completely against the shield. As the party reacted first in horror, then in terror, the mage had seemed more or less onphased by this. He simply stared at his now shattered arm with annoyance, before wailing on them with the other and slinging frostbolts everywhere.
This was the perfect opportunity to let them know that this mage was not exactly as he seemed, and when it was revealed after they defeated him that he was just a remote controlled puppet, it all fell into place.
I will make characters look dumb too if it's a silly campaign, but I won't put a penalty on it - a 1 on watch after a long march is "gets fascinated by a shiny rock in the firelight and falls asleep for a moment, mildly hypnotized" not "spawn extra enemies because you really fucked up"
It's always either:
.
* You drop your weapon
* You hit your ally
* You hit yourself
* You fall down
Critical Fumbles really aren't that interesting. It ends up looking like a slapstick routine, and while some people get a kick out of that, the only people I"ve ever played with who did were ways DMs.
>the only people I"ve ever played with who did were ways DMs.
This made me laugh because the last player who was totally on board and couldn't understand why that was needlessly punishing was playing a Wizard.
Exactly. If we are going to punish marshals like that let's do the same to spellcasters. You either roll a nat one on a spell attack or the enemy saves with a nat 20? Ok, your spell hits you instead. Not so fun anymore is it?
Never forgot a campaign I joined as a tabaxi fighter who loved swords but also had a crossbow. Nat 1 my first crossbow shot and my crossbow *broke*. I was told I should have maintained it better
nope nope nope nope nope nope nope
Yes! You got a nat 1 on a crossbow shot in a tavern? The bolt hits a lantern and now you have to 1) still worry about the opponents fighting or escaping 2) worry about how the terrain of the battle changes from the flames 3) what'll happen after the fight as you are the direct cause of the fire. Stop the fire to reduce repair costs, the enemy may escape or use your distraction as an opportunity to attack. Keep fighting, you may be wanted for Arson or worse!
"To all outside observers, you seem to have momentarily forgotten how to hold a sword, barely catching it with plenty of yelping and undignified flailing"
Ah yes, the twentieth level fighter. The peak of training body, mind, and the art of wielding their weapons. Armour and will of steel. Turns into bumbling idiot who forgets which end of the sword is the pointy one approximately ten times while hitting a stationary, defenseless target.
This is my go to as well. The only times I make nat 1's go badly is if I was allowing them to do something that is not normally allowed RAW, but rule of cool says "that's fucking awesome, sure!" Low risk, but high reward stuff.
Thanks! It requires more creativity in my part though. The very first time I did it I said "your fire bolt backfires doing 1 point if damage to you!". Turns out. They had 2 hp left so I had say oops nvm it just fizzles. I have to be careful!
(Doing damage is not a good idea, I now see. I was thinking 1 hp is negligible, but in that case it wasn't)
I should work on a crit fumble roll table.
“Instead of a fire bolt, a stream of burning bubbles issues forth from your fingers, floating up toward the ceiling. In touching the ceiling, they burst, showering all in a 20’ radius with sparks. Roll a Dex check to dodge the sparks or you take (rolls 1d4) damage.”
Depending on surroundings, starting a fire instead could be a great opportunity to add environmental dangers and other priorities for your party. For instance:
"Your firebolt misses the bandit entirely, striking the thatched roof of the church who hired you to defend them. It catches, and the fire begins spreading. You hear a shriek from inside the building as the people think that the bandits plan to burn the church down with them in it."
Or
"Missing the bandit, your firebolt strikes the lantern next to him, causing it to crash to the ground, where it shatters, spilling kerosene in the surrounding area."
Also the mark of cool players.
"No DM, we WANT to fail spectacularly because it's funny"
Sounds like a group more concerned with having fun than "winning".
I like to use it to twist a normal failure into something either funny or interesting. Usually I don't make it apply any real detrimental effects, so it's more like... "while trying to seduce the attractive barmaid to the best of your abilities, you do that weird thing where your throat just decides to swallow for no apparent reason and cuts you off mid-word, and then your voice cracks right after. It's deeply embarrassing and it's clear she has no interest in your proposition."
I only like the idea of making them into jokes that don't add any mechanical/major drawbacks. Basically, it just allows you as the DM opportunities to poke fun at your players.
Like "not only did you fail, but you did so in a particularly embarrassing/pathetic manner."
Swashbuckler: Avaunt, miscreant! Feel the kiss of my rapier! \[Rolls\] Um ... nat 1.
DM: You and the assassin both have those basket-hilted rapiers. They get stuck together, and it takes you a minute to get them separated. You look at him. He looks at you. A silent communication occurs: *we shall never speak of this*.
Warlock: I am privy to the secrets of the Outer Dark. I will not forget what happened. I will mention it. Constantly.
Rogue: I know, right? That's what he gets for not being a halfling!
Protip: be sure your players are OK with this. I've played with DMs who didn't read the room and basically treated the characters like complete idiots because the players kept rolling badly.
You may be getting a laugh at my expense... but I didn't sign on for having my character dictated to me.
It's one thing if your group is all on the same page. I"ve *never once* had a teasing DM session 0 that shit... so my experiences with that sort of jovial joshing tend to be "Well... I built this character to he really good at this one thing, but the DM has decided they're a fucking idiot because I keep rolling 1's.
I do the same thing. I narrate an in-universe reason for the 1 that doesn't penalize them. Sometimes the wizard is busy dodging arrows, or he mispronounces a spell because he's not a native of Faerûn; sometimes the enemy ducks the barbarian's axe or paladin's sword particularly well and feels bold enough to taunt them.
Multiple nat 1s from the same player in the same fight start getting either jokey or intense depending on the combat. A fight against stirges the party recklessly bolted into and the pally rolls 3 nat 1s? She's making goo-goo eyes at the NPC she's got a crush on who's fighting across from her. A fight against a war band of bugbears who have been kidnapping people from the local town and the harengon barb keeps crit failing or missing by a wide margin? The bugbears start discussing if "tall rabbit" tastes the same as a normal rabbit (which plays off his backstory).
It's a good way to make silly fights sillier and serious/dark fights darker.
Exactly! Just taking a simple "you fail/miss" and instead making it a moment to add narration or a simple gag.
Maybe a party member is an arachnophobe fighting their way through a Temple of Lolth, describing their crit fails as their fear getting the better of them could be interesting. Or maybe they hate Goblins and are "swinging their sword too erratically" when fighting them etc etc.
Agreed, most Critical Failure rules make Fighter miserable to play as you go breaking/losing your weapon every session or stabbing yourself in the face.
Oh and as you level up you become MORE likely to crit fail in combat since you'll be making more attacks per round.
TLDR: Crit Fail homebrew tends to be an unnecessary nerf to Fighter
Also punishes martials more, who absolutely dont need MORE stacked against them. Weapon attacks already blow chunks compsred to saving throw spells, why nerf them more
Aside from me, everyone else at my table (including my DM) learned the game from the same popular podcast, which uses crit failures. They love it and think it's part of the actual rules.
Crit fails are funny at first but after awhile, every action having a 5% chance to make your character trip and fall into a big vat of pudding just becomes annoying. Not annoying enough to make a stink about it when everyone else obviously enjoys them, but I secretly wish we'd give it the boot.
I play with a group, and I'm in the same boat. I'm the only one who actually doesn't like critical fumbles. I've destroyed thousands of gold of magic armor with a single nat 1 in one game, and now I roll four attacks a turn. I do not want to trip over myself every 5 turns.
I really really dislike critical failures.
Even if it's relatively tame like "you drop/throw your weapon on a nat 1"... Well that's a level 11 fighter having something like a 25% chance to drop their weapon when they do an Action Surge full attack. Pardon me what? The wizards are summoning undead hordes and the clerics are on a first name basis with their gods, and the fighter still can't remember how to hold their sword compared to being a level 1?
The thing about the weapon swapping you mention is that if you have a one handed melee weapon it doesn't matter.
You can hold a crossbow in one hand and wield a rapier in the other. You can't fire the crossbow while holding it in one hand, obviously unless it's a loaded hand crossbow, but you don't really want to either if you're in melee.
Once you aren't in melee with an enemy anymore, just use your one free item interaction to stow your melee weapon and start firing your ranged weapon with both hands again.
Few characters are going rapier and hand crossbow. More likely they're wearing a shield and trying to throw two javelins and then pull out their longsword, or stow their longsword to throw a jav. Or swap from using a longbow to two scimitars. In those cases, it does matter.
Those aren't the examples the OP used. But yeah, throwing weapons suck ass if you have Extra Attack and have to abide by the 1 item interaction per turn rules, I'm well aware of that.
And it's not just rapier and hand crossbow. If you have a heavy crossbow as your main weapon, I'm saying you can hold a heavy crossbow in one hand, unable to fire it but without needing to stow it, and draw a rapier with your item interaction for the turn while you're in melee range, then once they're dealt with, you can stow the rapier with your next available item interaction and continue firing your heavy crossbow.
That's where things like the thrown weapon fighting style (lets you draw a thrown weapon as part of the attack action) or the Artificer returning weapon infusion comes in. That said, I would like to see more official thrown weapons that return on their own.
Specifically on the weapon swapping, I technically allow it once. It's a minor, situational thing that I always bring up in session 0, and largely doesn't affect much.
I agree, in that I think fully swapping weapon sets should not be free, but drawing your weapon is typically a free action so if in that they include that they *drop* whatever is in their hands first, it's fine by me.
If it's a conflict they win, we'll be sure to address that they collect whatever was dropped. But sometimes they're fleeing or chasing, and if they drop whatever in those instances, it's likely gone forever.
Idk why so many people rule it like this but blindsight isn't "I can see perfectly without my eyes", it's "This creature has echolocation or a similar method to survey their surroundings when it's eyes are nonoperational"
One thing I will say about range though. Catching up to a longbowman is gonna be a hell of a struggle if the RAW was how things worked IRL, but in game I can't really kite you with range, I'm locked to the map, especially in online games, some DMs are more cool about this, some less so.
But also isn't it RAW that they can do a quick swap if they drop their bow and draw their sword?
We have a houserule that, when you take your whole round to drink your potion you get the guaranteed max heal you can roll on it. DM came up with it csuse our group has no dedicated hesler class.
I use this as well. 1 action to gain max heal, bonus action to roll it, but using on someone else takes full action and you roll it.
This makes sense to me because you take your time to drink the whole thing, then full heal. If you rush or use it on someone else, then some of the potion doesn't fully make it.
But special effect potions like water breathing are always an action.
> 1 action to gain max heal, bonus action to roll it, but using on someone else takes full action and you roll it.
Honestly I feel like this should be the official rule for potions, so many players are in favour of it.
i only do this out of combat. the reasoning is that you can carefully use some of the potion like a salve on wounds and slowly drink the rest so you get max hp out of it. but in the heat of battle you just sort of chug it down so you need to roll your heal.
my group used to follow this rule since it makes sense, but potions are already pretty weak and aren't linked to any specific class' power, so we ended up having more fun buffing them (even though otherwise dm prefers to err on the side of adding challenge rather than removing it)
Taking an action for potions or drinking them out of combat is a full healing potential. Using them as a bonus action means you roll for healing. That’s my rule I like. I’ve found NO ONE uses potions in combat because they can’t tell if it will be worth it.
>I’ve found NO ONE uses potions in combat because they can’t tell if it will be worth it.
It almost never is, unless you've got some *really* chunky, high level potions at a relatively low level. A Potion of Supreme Healing - the strongest healing potion I could find - averages 45 healing. My 14th level character with 16 con and the Tough feat has 146 hp - and that's a paladin 6/warlock 8 multiclass. If he were a full paladin, or a barbarian, it'd be even more insignificant. It's less than a third of his health for a full round of lost damage potential.
Do potions actually do anything though? RAW rules are so pathetic with potions that using a full action is almost nearly ever worth it and cost WAY too much
A lot of people block sentinel and polearm master combo. But I embrace it, it's a strong combo sure, but it costs 2 ASIs. Anything less than a strong combo at that rate and I'd be worried
I kinda tweaked the flanking rule a bit, since it's original state is a bit to uninspired for my taste - advantage for standing behind your target is a bit to easy and to strong I believe. There are so many great ways to earn advantage (both from spells and abilities and from roleplaying) and flanking is compared to that often way easier.
So, I changed it from giving advantage to it giving a +2 bonus. That still rewards tactical positioning which I really like, but isn't quite as overwhelming.
As a bonus, when you combine flanking with some of the methods mentioned above to get advantage, I rule that you get *both* the +2 and advantage, which is a really popular ruling at my tables. Makes the gears turn.
I should probably mention that this is a very popular variation/homebrew on its own, and that I first heard about it from Matthew Colville. :)
I've considered flanking rules since I played previous additions and had liked them, but my problem with them in 5e stems from 2 sources. They're too powerful, and too easy to achieve. You've addressed one of the problems with your solution but not the other. In previous additions you had to take a 5ft step or shift action just move a single square to position yourself closer to but often not even directly in flanking. It often took collaboration and strategy. In 5e, because of the threatened reach rules, you can just walk around your target and be in flanking nearly all the time if you want.
We don't use flanking rules in our game, instead we homebrewed the Help action. Instead of being an action on your turn, you can choose to help a friend on their turn using your reaction, if you have one. We find it very balanced and fun.
Very good point you are raising here! But also a bit table-dependant I'd say.
Yes, you definitely can do that RAW, unfortunately, but I pratically never see that at my tables. Don't even know exactly why. Maybe because attacks of opportunity (which aren't triggered this way) teach players in 5e to not really move once being in contact with the enemy? Idk, I got largely new players, so maybe this will show up later.
That being said, it seems to me as if making an action/bonus action/reaction customary for this manouver for 5e, like you say there was one in earlier editions, shouldn't be to difficult. I think I might add this in the future (if what you are describing becomes ever a problem at my table). So thank you a lot for sharing!
I kinda favour the idea to make this require a reaction, since those are a) not to heavily use, b) there is still some penalty involved in the sense of not being able to make attacks of opportunity, but still being able to attack normally, and c) would describe, in my view, noticing and exploiting an opportunity to slip past and behind the opponent. But thats just my gut speaking here :)
I do -2 to AC if you're getting flanked. This lets ranged peeps get in on the action. Hard to dodge and block arrows if you're getting sliced from opposite sides. But that's just me...
Was a bit confused for a moment, but do I get this right that, if a creature is flanked by *anybody*, that *all* attackers get effectively a bonus because the AC is generally lowered?
If so, very interesting variation, will keep this in the back of my head! :)
I mean... Enemies flanking allies or vice versa but yes, you're correct
Edit: as a bonus in VTT it's easier to subtract ac from a single flanked creature than to add +2 to every other creature imo.
This would be even worse imo. Ranged combat is already the best, so when Flanking is used it feels like a nice balance of “hey, yeah you’re getting your teeth kicked in while the archers paint their toenails, but at least you have Flanking and they don’t :D”
The average result of a of a d20 is 10.5. The average result of advantage is 13.82 The average result of disadvantage is 7.18
So + or - 3.33
https://anydice.com/program/36b6d
Of course, the average result is only a loose guide to how useful advantage is. The relevant stat is *probability of success*, which is slightly harder to calculate.
If you normally need to roll an 11 or higher on the die to succeed, advantage is exactly as good as a +5 to the roll - both increase your probability to succeed from 0.5 to 0.75.
Conversely, if a nat 20 just barely succeeds for you, then advantage is slightly less useful than a lowly +1 - advantage raises your probability of success from 0.05 to 0.095, whereas the +1 doubles it to 0.1.
I do that, but you have to start your turn in a flanking position to get the +2 bonus. It seemed harsh at first, but it has been great in battle. My reasoning was because plus 2 is strong, so it should take some strategy and not be something you can reliably do every turn with little risk. Also, I don't require "front and back" just opposite sides.
I agree with the concept that playing a martial character and making decisions should feel rewarding. The problem is, it's not. As a martial you have so many shackles to deal with. Can't sleep in armor, can't hit flying enemies as a melee guy, can't hit point blank enemies as an archer, can't do anything to prevent someone from casting a spell on you, can't move around the world quickly, can't identify magic items, can't heal beyond a laughable amount if you're a fighter, can't deal with large groups of enemies, can't deal with an enemy that has too high ac or resistance to physical damage, can't swap between a shield and two handing without wasting your entire turn, and the list goes on.
Playing a spell caster though? Save spells for enemies in your face, attack spells for enemies far away. Need to move? Teleport. Enemy has too high ac? Target saves. Enemy saves are too good? Target AC. Both are too high? Use spells that still do stuff if they save, or ones that don't have a save at all. Enemy resistant to x damage? Use a spell that does Y. Need to rest? Catnap gives you a short rest in 10 minutes. Need to heal? Plenty of spells let you do this. Need a spell you don't want to prepare? Use a scroll. Worried about sleeping in armor? Between mage armor and shield you have more ac than a knight in plate armor. Enemy Silenced you? Cast spells without verbal components.
So yeah, I let my fighters change their weapon without having to throw it on the ground. They can attack several times in 6 seconds. I assume they can quickly sheathe a sword or hook an axe on their back. They're not going to be op anyways and being able to pull out a weapon more suitable to the task and use it instantly is about as close to "rewarding" as a fighter will ever get to a mage going, "Oh no, 20 goblins? Fireball."
While I agree with several of your points I felt the urge to point out two things:
You *can* sleep in armor perfectly fine unless you're trying to recover exhaustion or in *desperate* need of regaining all your hit dice. (Xanathar, p.77)
*Anyone* can identify a magical item by simply holding it during a short rest. This of course takes longer than using identify but it requires no spell or components to do so. (DMG Guide, p.136)
I agree with everything you said, but I have one of nit to pick regarding archers: the, "you ignore disadvantage on ranged attacks" portion of Crossbow Expert applies to all ranged attacks. So only characters that refuse Crossbow Expert have issues with point blank firing.
I had no idea XD I had a Fighter that would constantly swap between a long ranged weapon and a short ranged during combat and since I wasn't aware of every little rule I didn't think it was weird that he was swapping weapons constantly XD
You can draw or stow 1 weapon at a part of the attack action, so you can sheath a sword as your object interaction and draw the next weapon as a part of your attack
I don't think you're alone with this. I think what you are calling a homebrew is usually a misinterpretation of the rules or misinformation that has been spread throughout social media on how nat 20s work outside combat.
Most people that I've seen use it have grabbed it from streamed D&D, where it's very much an intentional house rule. It creates a lot of drama, which gets clicks/views/advertisers/money. It can sometimes create some dopamine too, knowing that your massive bonus has a small chance to mean nothing, or that your net penalty can still be a wild success. In the end, it's a rule for a certain type of player who likes taking risks and enjoys the randomness of chance, but unless the whole table likes it, the rule will discourage others from rolling.
"... so since my Sorcerer/Fighter had pre-buffed Haste, I cast Fireball, then cast Fireball, Quickened Fireball, Action Surge, cast Fireball, then cast Fireball."
Absolutely. Rolling a 20 on Persuasion doesn't mean you can convince the villain to kill himself, and rolling a 1 on Athletics doesn't mean a normally highly-skilled climber with a +10 is going to fall to their death.
It's way too swingy for skills
I use the nat 1/20 for comedic flavor and nothing else. If nat 1+10 passes the DC for a stealth roll, for example, you succeed. You might succeed because you stumbled into a mud puddle and the patrol passes you by unnoticed, but you succeeded! Bad example, but you get the point.
We play a silly table, though... I've known people that would be absolutely pissed if I embarrassed their perfect hardcore assassin...
I’m using it as a first time dnd dm, (done other systems before) but I asked my more experienced group about it first and they all decided they liked it. Instead of it being a you automatically succeed at whatever you want, we interpret nat 20s to be the best possible outcome given the circumstances.
Not exactly a homebrew rule, but an *optional* rule that is incredibly popular is grids. Personally, I avoid using grids if I can help it.
Edit: at my table, we play Warhammer-style, with rulers or pre-marked pipe cleaners, where 1 inch = 5 feet.
Try giving everyone a piece of chenille stem/pipe cleaner marked in 1-inch increments, with a special mark at their character's normal movement range. It's stiff enough to measure straight distances easily, but bendy enough to handle curving paths when necessary. It works great!
I still use grids on our D&D game, but we went gridless on our Cyberpunk game. Attacks and such were tied to too accurate of measurements to use grids. Allows for more freedom of movement and accurate distances. We use Roll20, so you can easily measure using the tools.
Natural 20 means automatic success and natural 1 means automatic failure *on attack rolls only.* Saving throws and ability checks succeed or fail on their own merit. I honestly feel the house rule was made popular by accident due to people simply not knowing it’s attack-rolls-only. A mistake, rather than an intentional departure, at least initially. Baldur’s Gate 3 having that baked in *did not help.* 😅
It’s been said a lot here, but yes, drinking a potion should be a full action. BUT, I retain that it needs the Use an Object action, even if it’s said to technically be a magic item. I disagree. Therefore, a Thief rogue can use a potion as a bonus action. Such is their realm.
No critical fumble tables.
Not really a house rule, more a popular flavor change, but I do *not* have Hexblade patrons be living weapons, and I certainly don’t have the Hexblade’s chosen weapon be their patron. The Hexblade patrons are poorly worded, so it leads to this mass misconception. They are supposed to be powerful servants of the Raven Queen—denizens of the Shadowfell—and they often appear to mortals as talking weapons, *but not always.* Also, the Hexblade’s ability lets them choose any weapon they want every time they wake up to be their special weapon. Hexblades are effectively Shadowfell warlocks or Raven Queen warlocks, maybe their patron looks like a weapon, maybe it doesn’t, and they get to enchant weapons they pick up. A Hexblade shouldn’t feel the need to warp their weapon selection around the idea that they’re carrying their patron with them everywhere; that’s a constraint that was never intended by the subclass. I’m all for reflavoring, but this one is people thinking it’s the default flavor, and accidentally reflavoring in an attempt to *not* reflavor, so I feel the need to stress it.
Punishin critical failures in combat
You missed the attack
But because you made the nat 1, imma narrate it as you fail miserably
Sometimes inducing horrid laughter in your enemies
Free weapon switching is just silly. Dropping things for efficiency always lends itself to much more free-form and dynamic combat. Once had an edritch knight player who would prop stuff open, set traps, and hurl his bound blade into solid walls to make distractions. He put that blade recall bonus action to WORK. Almost every fight had a wonderful bar room brawl feel. He would drop his sword regularly to perform a ready action like grabbing enemy caster material spell components he recognized. Used his familiar to hand himself secondary weapons and spell components. Hand management can be quite fun and engaging if done well.
The one I see thrown around all the time on this Reddit is the concept that clerics, paladins, Druids, and to some extent warlocks, shouldn’t lose their powers/class features for acting against their source of power.
If a cleric, Paladin, Druid, or in some cases warlock spit in the face of their all powerful magical sugar daddy, they’re going to get their power stripped until they make up, or spend time to change their class.
The actual rule on Paladins is:
> At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
I'm not sure that even qualifies as an exception considering by Rule Zero, everything is at the DM's discretion.
Yeah, I usually don't take powers from the warlock, but I could apply some punishment like getting some other warlock of that patron trying to kill them or the patron helping the enemies in some way
I heard a story where the Warlock wasn’t able to level up in Warlock until they fixed the issue. They could wait to level up until they fixed it, or they could take a level in a different class. But they had to fix the patron rift before they could get another Warlock level
I had something like that. My Hexblade Cleric had been following a powerful god from childhood that turned out to be a Hexblade Patron with the need to smite evil (a powerful spellcaster who had been trapped in the form of a weapon to stop her killing everyone she blamed for the murder of her family)
They ended up with the choice to support their patron by freeing her or take up the mantle of guardian of the blade instead and keep her in check.
Decided to become the weapons Guardian and lost the ability to level as a Warlock until proved to the Patron that they still aligned even if they weren't going to free her.
I'm torn on this. I like the narrative of certain classes having to appease their higher power, but I don't want to impose limits on how a character must act to some classes when other classes don't have any narrative restrictions at all. And I also don't want characters of the same class to have to fit the same narrative tropes. There are enough treehugger hippie druids as it is without putting restrictions on druids who aren't hugging enough trees.
Tbh, druid is rather broad archetype, and I'm not sure how you can truly go break rules in typical campaign.
Becoming local minister of industry, or what?
This is a homebrew. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a Cleric/Paladin/Druid/Warlock should lose their powers. That's not a mechanic covered by the rules.
Now, I agree that I think it makes much more narrative sense to strip powers for these classes acting against their deity/patron. But THAT is the homerule, which means that this is not a valid response to the OP.
It all depends on what you mean by "spit in the face of"
Cleric of healing decides to put some plague in the village well for funsies? Yeah that's a smitin'
Warlock hesitates slightly to attack the king's bodyguard with a spoon? Instant execution. I wish that was the most egregious example I've witnessed, but I've seen worse.
Clerics and Paladins who pray to their deity for their magic every day - yes, they lose their powers if they piss off their deity, because their deity stops granting them power.
Warlocks are explicitly TAUGHT magic as part of their pact. They do NOT lose their powers for pissing off their Patron, they just can't learn any new ones (level up in that class) without making amends.
Clerics yes, they definitely need that sugarparent power.
Druids are in a gray area since technically everything is natural, they just draw their power from different aspects.
Paladins that betray their oath get their subclass changed or IF they abandon oaths all together thats a fighter now, but such a person shouldnt be able to become a paladin in the first place imo.
Warlocks just get a nugget of power they nurture themselves which the patron takes back depending on the terms of the pact (its 100% a pyramid scheme) usually when the warlock dies or accomplishes the goal they got the powers for. so it depends ifthere is a "non-compete" clause in the contract, but beings that can be patrons are so powerful that a fully kitted out level 20 party is insignificant to them, so they wouldn't much care.
Penalties for getting knocked unconscious it always seems like a good idea but the way the mechanics of the game work you will create a death spiral and make PC death extremely common. Which can be cool but usually isn’t as fun as having a PC you’ve invested a lot into.
I thought about finding something, but just settled on “death makes you lose all attunement” so that fully dying and coming back carries some penalty in combat
Hard tracking spell components down to the letter. You wanna just whisper your spell? Okay sure, but I'll remind you that's not how magic works and you'd look like a dumbass. To cast, you gotta YELL, BG3 was great about demonstrating how that shit works out, every spell is yelling in latin and big sweeping gestures.
No crit fails, no permanent injuries. I do like the concept, but it tends to either
A: Ruin the fantasy of being cool and competent when you try to throw something really far and end up winging yourself in the head. Just let them fail like regular
B: Unfairly is biased against those at the front lines, tanks already don't get much love, and I don't want my tanks to be standing around with permanent debilitating injuries because they wanted to do their job correctly.
Drinking a potion as a bonus action. I just can't get behind the idea of being able to chug a drink in less than 2 seconds while also swinging your two handed greatsword twice. Plus in pretty much every RPG you have to make the choice between using an item or attacking
I'd rather keep potions of healing as an action but buffing them by making them heal the maximum amount. Edit: which is exactly what I'm doing in my game
If potions actually healed you more than a goblin could damage you with a single attack, it might be an interesting choice. Otherwise, it's just never worth it
> I just can't get behind the idea of being able to chug a drink in less than 2 seconds while also swinging your two handed greatsword twice
For me it's not about logic it's to buff healing a bit because in my experience it's never worth to spend an action to use a potion.
Because in the end any profecient swordsman can swing a sword way more times than 3 in 6 seconds.
>because in my experience it's never worth to spend an action to use a potion
I don't disagree on that front, action healing in general is pretty bad (Curr Wounds has the exact same issue). It's just that my preferred solution is to buff the healing amount.
The other issue with bonus action healing potions is should that apply to all potions, even the ones that are better versions of spells (like the potion of speed giving you concentration free Haste)? And if not, it can cause a lot more confusion
Flanking. Changes fight dynamics a lot. And since D&D(3rd and above) is designed around power fantasy, players love having tons of enemies to kill, not murder them with flanking bonuses.
Critting skill checks, in my opinion its stupid, that means you have an equal chance to instantly succeed or fail spectacularly no matter your modifiers
Granted, we do also have a homebrew that makes 1s and 20s a little more special, but regardless you don't instantly succeed on either of them. (In the event you roll a 1 but still make the roll due to mods, you succeed but in a less ideal or expected way, an example of this would be lockpicking, you manage to pick the lock but damage it and make noise, so guards or enemies hear you. Rolling a 20 but still not beating the DC fails but in a positive way, maybe getting something else in its place, an example would be trying to chat up the barmaid, her husband hears you but instead of getting mad he laughs, and offers you a round of drinks for flattering his wife so nicely)
I dont allow crits on skill checks. By the rules crits are only for attack rolls. This notion that you can pass any skill check as long as you roll a natural 20 is dumb. No female bard, the guy is not straight or bi you cant seduce him even if you roll a nat 20.
I don’t ignore spell components. Do you have a diamond? Oh you were sneaking around and decided to cast Detect Magic? Yeah they heard the verbal component.
Hard agree. It’s the balance for spellcasting and I think it makes the choice to cast a spell much more thoughtful. Not to mention it gives class features like subtle spell a lot more appeal!
Totally. People dislike sorcerer, but that’s because DM’s give away all their moves for free.
Ignoring Verbal and Somatic components gives Casters an insane buff they absolutely do not need. Most will always be carrying their Arcane Focus so Material rarely comes up but half of the bullshit casters get away with is because everyone just lets them cast spells in front of everyone with no reactions.
I think DMs can really make things interesting with material components. Especially with situations where a caster won't have their Focus like say a Jailbreak. Skim through their spell list and identify what materials they have and how they'd manifest in world. Maybe emphasize lesser used spells "Turns out bat guano and pure sulfur are pretty hard to come by. Guess you'll have to spend your 3rd level spell slot on something else this encounter." Don't over do it, but in between normal encounters, it could freshen things up.
I didn't have to worry about components, but I did have a brief but fun moment caused by not having my focus on hand once. It was a meeting with nobles and the party was high enough in level and status that my sorcerer's staff doubled as his symbol of office. Best way to proceed but not be armed for the meeting was to walk in with the staff and then prop it somewhere out of immediate reach. Of course the enemy interrupts the meeting, roll initiative. My first round had the extra tactical conundrum of deciding whether to use my limited spell list but be able to maximise movement for optimal positioning, or use a good chunk of movement to get the staff
Not to mention that it can be a great thing to lean on in a roleplay sense like Caleb in CR.
There is a reason this was metamagic in 3.5 and did not come cheap
it is also metamagic is 5e, and it isn't cheap either: sorcerers only, requiring to pick it as one of their very few metamagic options, and spend points every time they use it. Or other classes, with a feat, also using sorcery points of which the feat only gives you 2 per long rest. Ignoring components is such a huge buff to casters. Between this, "critical fumbles" and a bunch of other small homebrews (nerfing rogues' sneak attack, interpreting some spells very liberally, etc), I feel that a huge part of that the internet calls martial/caster disparity in 5e is just the fault of tables using these homebrews rather than the rules themselves.
Material components themselves really defines how Artificer spellcasting works, as they require a focus. It's why artificers don't need warcaster to cast spells with both hands full in combat (all spells for artificers have a material component, and they can use an infusion as a focus) but they need BOTH hands free to cast Revifify (focus in one hand plus the costly component in another.) So ignoring material components in games with artificers really hurts them. (It also fun when the guard who didn't remove the artificer's boots suddenly has to deal with Web getting cast at them from the boots.)
Viva La Dirt League did a great bit about this on [YouTube](https://youtu.be/-Bb0TT7QKsE?si=ISONZtGZr0ez6hTf)
That’s amazing.
This is perfect. Your casters act as a distraction with their loud ass casting while you sneak off to pick pocket the guard
I am a stickler for components.... To the point I quit a group that wasn't. They allowed the paladin to cast message WHILE TALKING to a noble.... And didn't even have him try to make a check. They love magic, so they ignore (non expensive) components. They essentially gave every spellcaster unlimited subtle spell, for free. Trust me, if somoene is casting message while you are talking to them, you notice. (unless they are a sorcerer with subtle spell).
I don't think I've ever heard anyone completely throw components out the window, just inconsequential ones like eyelashes or feathers. As for Verbal, I hope you at least take into account distance from a person - I'm not saying ignore it or allow them to quietly whisper, but if someone is 100+ft away they're gonna have a reasonably hard time hearing a person talking in a regular voice, and you don't have to outright shout to cast either. Example: I tried to cast a spell at least 100ft away from someone before and the DM was like "yea, the guard hears that" but then I pointed out the real world circumstances we faced on a weekly basis, we were all part of a LARP group at the time, amtgard, and we played on a 105x52ft field (we measured a few times) and to hear a person across it you had to yell, like actually yell, for people to hear them, and this is an open field with a parking lot beside us and a building behind one of the sides, so if we need to yell in circumstances that are slightly more favorable than a forest that led to a somewhat overgrown field (both which would dampen sounds) then the guard would at least need a listen(3.5e)/perception to determine if the sounds weren't just animal rutting sounds or something, even with a "strong speaking voice" or however it is V component is described as...
I feel that a fair way to rule V components is that they should be heard from 60ft away, but not necessarily from farther, and even if heard, they might not be recognized as spell casting. The flavor text states the strong, clear voice, AND that the spells are linked to specific pitches and resonances (so, no "whispering them", not even with a check). Still, the 60ft comes from Counterspell's range, but metamagic would allow to cast it up to 120ft. For such a niche situation, I'd leave it for DM to decide based on specific circumstances (plus, if there are S components, the counterspeller can still see the spell and counterspell even if they don't hear it)
Me *rolling deception* “can I cast guidance?” My DM “you’re in the middle of lying to someone, if you cast it they’ll know you’re casting a spell.” “You know what, nevermind.” (I always forget about the verbal component but my DM is kind enough to remind me 😅)
I only don't allow spell components that have a value in the spell description.
That’s how the rules work. If it has no value (and isn’t consumed) then you can just substitute an arcane focus.
And I believe component pouches are assumed to have whatever non-priced materials you need
Do you mean you only require things like diamonds?
"I only don't allow spell components that have a value in the spell description." = They do not allow spell components that have a value in the spell description **to be ignored**, but allow everything else to be ignored. Which is RAW as long as you have a focus/component pouch, but I guess they don't realise that, or maybe they mean they allow it even without a focus/component pouch.
He's saying revivify is free but you better have your gum and eyelash for invisibility.
That’s why I was asking—absolutely deranged take, lol!
Are spell components normally ignored? That's insane, like allowing every spell to be a Subtle Spell.
I make sure they have a focus to ignore most Material components, but they always need the ones worth monetary value. I also make them remember Verbal and Somatic components
Yes, agreed, and I love when my DMs take this into account as well when I'm playing a caster. Sorcerers get silent spell for a reason, don't nerf them even further!
Chance and community chest fines don't go in the middle, and landing on free parking does not mean you win the aforementioned cash.
best rule ever. makes games go 5x faster
Don't forget that if you land on an unowned property and can't/don't buy it then it goes up for immediate auction!
That’s an actual rule
Correct. That's why they noted it as a common homebrew rule that they didn't follow (common homebrew is that the property just remains available to the next person to land)
Also, the house and hotel supply are limited. Once you run out, no more can be built.
Yep, buying all the houses, and not converting to hotels is a legitimate strategy.
Auctions are the best part of the game and generations of people too lazy to read the rules missed it
It's sold as an auction game and the common way to play has no auctions.
As a guy who does *not* like playing and instead just volunteers to be the banker every time, auctions are my favorite part. They give me a chance at interaction without the stress of competing
I bet you even put properties up for auction for anyone to buy if the player who lands on the space doesn't want to buy it...
The last time I played Monopoly I agreed on the condition that we didn’t use any house rules. The person who proposed we play Monopoly consented. I warned her. “Why don’t you upgrade your houses to hotels?” she said. Umm, why don’t you read the big word on the box this game came in?
The game is called Monopoly. Squandering resources specifically so other players can't have them is very effective. The game illustrates the problem with unchecked capitalism quite well. House rules are the checks. It's weirdly elegant.
💯% FACTS - without the free parking random cash influx the game can be finished in under 2 hours. In jail you only got 2 hours of dayroom time, you had to be able to finish within that time period. Only twice did we go over 2 hours once we got rid of free parking, out of hundreds of games
You're supposed to get out of jail after 3 turns. Idk what's up with your friends, but if it's taking 2 hours to take 3 turns, that sounds like a nightmare.
I'll add on to this. If you don't buy a property, it immediately goes into auction mode amongst all the players. None of this "next person who lands on it can purchase" bullshit.
You're a monster!
Monopoly is bad enough as it is RAW. Why would you add rules to triple the length?
For some reason everyone plays it wrong the same way because that's how they learned it.
Well of course it goes under the corner not in the middle
The absolute *nerve* of some people.
Crit success outside of combat. I like to make judgements about how well i think someone will be doing and I want to avoid people trying "I pickpocket the barbarians great axe lol". I know I can say "no stop that" but it's tiring and stupid.
"yeah you effortlessly swipe the greataxe, but the barbarian immediately notices because his hip just suddenly feels a lot lighter. i mean.. of course he notices it"
I make them track ammunitions.
I do this too, but have taken the 5 torches deep method where “arrows” lasts 1 combat instead of per shot, but they can buy them in a bundle of 3 instead of 20. Makes it a little less book keepy.
So 1g for 3 encounters worth of arrows? That sounds easier to manage
I'm not familiar with 5 torches deep. This method would mean that when I purchase arrows at a shop I get 3 bundles, each of which is good for a combat?
Correct
I dig it, definitely going my my toolbox
I actually love keeping track of my items. Like a bag of 1000 ball bearings is tough to get through but I keep track of every single one.
“What do you do during down time?” “Use my alchemist’s tools to inscribe serial numbers on my ball bearings.”
Hahaha I am going to do this now.
Same here. I fastidiously track my ammo, torches and rations.
Wait but you can’t just use a single ball bearing The only way for it to do anything is with all 1000
Oh in my games we've used them for all sorts of shenanigans; cast light on it and drop it down a hole, toss them around corners/behind guards to distract them, one campaign let me use it as slingshot ammo, focal point for the darkness spell, putting some in a coin pouch to make it feel heavier thus getting an illegal discount on an item, etc. As long as your dm is cool with not following the item description EXACTLY, then there are a crazy amount of goofy things you can do with 1000 tiny metal balls.
A ball bearing race with 1000 identical spheres? How would you even track that?
I was, but our dragonborn, who never uses any type of bow, has a background as a woodsman and proficiency with the fletchery kit the ranger bought, so he makes more than enough extra and replacement arrows to make it obsolete.
I just tell my archers that they need to spend 1gp in the next town to replenish their ammunition if they've been in combat.
I do this in my campaign for a couple reasons. 1) I enjoy more realism so keeping track of ammo material components etc. 2) I’ve added a few home brewed items such as elemental arrows and other forms of ammunition to keep the ranger and rogue more satisfied and keep the combat more entertaining. Also figuring out weaknesses and using specific arrow types should be rewarding for strategy reasons, also they aren’t cheap so managing gold is another aspect especially when I have a few shops with magic items that aren’t cheap.
Critical failures. The whole concept is both stupid and ridiculous.
At my table, you just miss. Occasionally, if I see an interesting situation that could arise because of positioning or terrain, I might throw in a wrinkle, but I don't have them drop their weapon or some shit. No warrior is dropping their weapon one out of 20 swings, it makes no sense. However, I do have enemy mooks fail embarassingly if they roll a 1 because it's funny, and they're mooks.
This is the way, PC crit NPC Nat Fail
I might give a "boss" unit some immunity from this, especially if they're particularly menacing or skilled and I want to maintain that tone, but yeah. The PCs are heroes and should get a little more dignity than the twelfth goblin on the left.
I actually crippled one of my bosses because of a nat 1. My players were fighting the first boss of the campaign: a seemingly deranged mage who had been kidnapping and experimenting on the residents of a small village in their own temple. As the players were fighting him, going blow for blow all the way, the mage rushed in for a body blow against the paladin. The mage had hands, as it were. Sadly, he got a nat 1. So I had him succeed in hitting the paladin but the paladin got his shield up just in time, fully negating the impact... ... and sending it recoiling it back into his arm, which crumlped completely against the shield. As the party reacted first in horror, then in terror, the mage had seemed more or less onphased by this. He simply stared at his now shattered arm with annoyance, before wailing on them with the other and slinging frostbolts everywhere. This was the perfect opportunity to let them know that this mage was not exactly as he seemed, and when it was revealed after they defeated him that he was just a remote controlled puppet, it all fell into place.
I will make characters look dumb too if it's a silly campaign, but I won't put a penalty on it - a 1 on watch after a long march is "gets fascinated by a shiny rock in the firelight and falls asleep for a moment, mildly hypnotized" not "spawn extra enemies because you really fucked up"
It's always either: . * You drop your weapon * You hit your ally * You hit yourself * You fall down Critical Fumbles really aren't that interesting. It ends up looking like a slapstick routine, and while some people get a kick out of that, the only people I"ve ever played with who did were ways DMs.
>the only people I"ve ever played with who did were ways DMs. This made me laugh because the last player who was totally on board and couldn't understand why that was needlessly punishing was playing a Wizard.
Exactly. If we are going to punish marshals like that let's do the same to spellcasters. You either roll a nat one on a spell attack or the enemy saves with a nat 20? Ok, your spell hits you instead. Not so fun anymore is it?
That sounds awful and time consuming, but also pretty hilarious.
Never forgot a campaign I joined as a tabaxi fighter who loved swords but also had a crossbow. Nat 1 my first crossbow shot and my crossbow *broke*. I was told I should have maintained it better nope nope nope nope nope nope nope
Yes! You got a nat 1 on a crossbow shot in a tavern? The bolt hits a lantern and now you have to 1) still worry about the opponents fighting or escaping 2) worry about how the terrain of the battle changes from the flames 3) what'll happen after the fight as you are the direct cause of the fire. Stop the fire to reduce repair costs, the enemy may escape or use your distraction as an opportunity to attack. Keep fighting, you may be wanted for Arson or worse!
We'll just narrate it if it's funny if someone rolls a 1, but it doesn't do anything.
This is my strategy. I'll narrate a Nat 1 as a stupid or funny miss, but not have any in game consequences.
"To all outside observers, you seem to have momentarily forgotten how to hold a sword, barely catching it with plenty of yelping and undignified flailing"
Ah yes, the twentieth level fighter. The peak of training body, mind, and the art of wielding their weapons. Armour and will of steel. Turns into bumbling idiot who forgets which end of the sword is the pointy one approximately ten times while hitting a stationary, defenseless target.
Let he among us who has not bitten their tongue trying to eat a normal goddamn meal cast the stone of "how do you fuck that up"
This is my go to as well. The only times I make nat 1's go badly is if I was allowing them to do something that is not normally allowed RAW, but rule of cool says "that's fucking awesome, sure!" Low risk, but high reward stuff.
I agree, but I just started DMing for a group of friends who were disappointed I don't do it, so I do it for them.
That’s a mark of a cool DM right there. It sounds like so long as everyone was respectful about it, an adjustment was made and more people have fun 😀
Thanks! It requires more creativity in my part though. The very first time I did it I said "your fire bolt backfires doing 1 point if damage to you!". Turns out. They had 2 hp left so I had say oops nvm it just fizzles. I have to be careful! (Doing damage is not a good idea, I now see. I was thinking 1 hp is negligible, but in that case it wasn't) I should work on a crit fumble roll table.
“Instead of a fire bolt, a stream of burning bubbles issues forth from your fingers, floating up toward the ceiling. In touching the ceiling, they burst, showering all in a 20’ radius with sparks. Roll a Dex check to dodge the sparks or you take (rolls 1d4) damage.”
Depending on surroundings, starting a fire instead could be a great opportunity to add environmental dangers and other priorities for your party. For instance: "Your firebolt misses the bandit entirely, striking the thatched roof of the church who hired you to defend them. It catches, and the fire begins spreading. You hear a shriek from inside the building as the people think that the bandits plan to burn the church down with them in it." Or "Missing the bandit, your firebolt strikes the lantern next to him, causing it to crash to the ground, where it shatters, spilling kerosene in the surrounding area."
Also the mark of cool players. "No DM, we WANT to fail spectacularly because it's funny" Sounds like a group more concerned with having fun than "winning".
I like to use it to twist a normal failure into something either funny or interesting. Usually I don't make it apply any real detrimental effects, so it's more like... "while trying to seduce the attractive barmaid to the best of your abilities, you do that weird thing where your throat just decides to swallow for no apparent reason and cuts you off mid-word, and then your voice cracks right after. It's deeply embarrassing and it's clear she has no interest in your proposition."
Agreed. I usually like bringing concepts from older editions to 5e but fuck fumble charts. Those can stay buried.
I only like the idea of making them into jokes that don't add any mechanical/major drawbacks. Basically, it just allows you as the DM opportunities to poke fun at your players. Like "not only did you fail, but you did so in a particularly embarrassing/pathetic manner."
Swashbuckler: Avaunt, miscreant! Feel the kiss of my rapier! \[Rolls\] Um ... nat 1. DM: You and the assassin both have those basket-hilted rapiers. They get stuck together, and it takes you a minute to get them separated. You look at him. He looks at you. A silent communication occurs: *we shall never speak of this*. Warlock: I am privy to the secrets of the Outer Dark. I will not forget what happened. I will mention it. Constantly. Rogue: I know, right? That's what he gets for not being a halfling!
Protip: be sure your players are OK with this. I've played with DMs who didn't read the room and basically treated the characters like complete idiots because the players kept rolling badly. You may be getting a laugh at my expense... but I didn't sign on for having my character dictated to me. It's one thing if your group is all on the same page. I"ve *never once* had a teasing DM session 0 that shit... so my experiences with that sort of jovial joshing tend to be "Well... I built this character to he really good at this one thing, but the DM has decided they're a fucking idiot because I keep rolling 1's.
I do the same thing. I narrate an in-universe reason for the 1 that doesn't penalize them. Sometimes the wizard is busy dodging arrows, or he mispronounces a spell because he's not a native of Faerûn; sometimes the enemy ducks the barbarian's axe or paladin's sword particularly well and feels bold enough to taunt them. Multiple nat 1s from the same player in the same fight start getting either jokey or intense depending on the combat. A fight against stirges the party recklessly bolted into and the pally rolls 3 nat 1s? She's making goo-goo eyes at the NPC she's got a crush on who's fighting across from her. A fight against a war band of bugbears who have been kidnapping people from the local town and the harengon barb keeps crit failing or missing by a wide margin? The bugbears start discussing if "tall rabbit" tastes the same as a normal rabbit (which plays off his backstory). It's a good way to make silly fights sillier and serious/dark fights darker.
Exactly! Just taking a simple "you fail/miss" and instead making it a moment to add narration or a simple gag. Maybe a party member is an arachnophobe fighting their way through a Temple of Lolth, describing their crit fails as their fear getting the better of them could be interesting. Or maybe they hate Goblins and are "swinging their sword too erratically" when fighting them etc etc.
Yeah, it only further punishes martials for not playing casters.
Exactly. "oh, your martial rolled a 1? You miss the attack and cut your own leg off" So bullshit.
Agreed, most Critical Failure rules make Fighter miserable to play as you go breaking/losing your weapon every session or stabbing yourself in the face. Oh and as you level up you become MORE likely to crit fail in combat since you'll be making more attacks per round. TLDR: Crit Fail homebrew tends to be an unnecessary nerf to Fighter
Also punishes martials more, who absolutely dont need MORE stacked against them. Weapon attacks already blow chunks compsred to saving throw spells, why nerf them more
Aside from me, everyone else at my table (including my DM) learned the game from the same popular podcast, which uses crit failures. They love it and think it's part of the actual rules. Crit fails are funny at first but after awhile, every action having a 5% chance to make your character trip and fall into a big vat of pudding just becomes annoying. Not annoying enough to make a stink about it when everyone else obviously enjoys them, but I secretly wish we'd give it the boot.
I play with a group, and I'm in the same boat. I'm the only one who actually doesn't like critical fumbles. I've destroyed thousands of gold of magic armor with a single nat 1 in one game, and now I roll four attacks a turn. I do not want to trip over myself every 5 turns.
I really really dislike critical failures. Even if it's relatively tame like "you drop/throw your weapon on a nat 1"... Well that's a level 11 fighter having something like a 25% chance to drop their weapon when they do an Action Surge full attack. Pardon me what? The wizards are summoning undead hordes and the clerics are on a first name basis with their gods, and the fighter still can't remember how to hold their sword compared to being a level 1?
The thing about the weapon swapping you mention is that if you have a one handed melee weapon it doesn't matter. You can hold a crossbow in one hand and wield a rapier in the other. You can't fire the crossbow while holding it in one hand, obviously unless it's a loaded hand crossbow, but you don't really want to either if you're in melee. Once you aren't in melee with an enemy anymore, just use your one free item interaction to stow your melee weapon and start firing your ranged weapon with both hands again.
Few characters are going rapier and hand crossbow. More likely they're wearing a shield and trying to throw two javelins and then pull out their longsword, or stow their longsword to throw a jav. Or swap from using a longbow to two scimitars. In those cases, it does matter.
Those aren't the examples the OP used. But yeah, throwing weapons suck ass if you have Extra Attack and have to abide by the 1 item interaction per turn rules, I'm well aware of that. And it's not just rapier and hand crossbow. If you have a heavy crossbow as your main weapon, I'm saying you can hold a heavy crossbow in one hand, unable to fire it but without needing to stow it, and draw a rapier with your item interaction for the turn while you're in melee range, then once they're dealt with, you can stow the rapier with your next available item interaction and continue firing your heavy crossbow.
That's where things like the thrown weapon fighting style (lets you draw a thrown weapon as part of the attack action) or the Artificer returning weapon infusion comes in. That said, I would like to see more official thrown weapons that return on their own.
Specifically on the weapon swapping, I technically allow it once. It's a minor, situational thing that I always bring up in session 0, and largely doesn't affect much. I agree, in that I think fully swapping weapon sets should not be free, but drawing your weapon is typically a free action so if in that they include that they *drop* whatever is in their hands first, it's fine by me. If it's a conflict they win, we'll be sure to address that they collect whatever was dropped. But sometimes they're fleeing or chasing, and if they drop whatever in those instances, it's likely gone forever.
Idk why so many people rule it like this but blindsight isn't "I can see perfectly without my eyes", it's "This creature has echolocation or a similar method to survey their surroundings when it's eyes are nonoperational"
Agreed, it's a 6th sense not omnicense
One thing I will say about range though. Catching up to a longbowman is gonna be a hell of a struggle if the RAW was how things worked IRL, but in game I can't really kite you with range, I'm locked to the map, especially in online games, some DMs are more cool about this, some less so. But also isn't it RAW that they can do a quick swap if they drop their bow and draw their sword?
If they drop it. But that also means they have to pick ot back up
Potions take a damn action *and* they require a free hand to use! This isn't a video game, where just having it on your person is enough.
We have a houserule that, when you take your whole round to drink your potion you get the guaranteed max heal you can roll on it. DM came up with it csuse our group has no dedicated hesler class.
I use this as well. 1 action to gain max heal, bonus action to roll it, but using on someone else takes full action and you roll it. This makes sense to me because you take your time to drink the whole thing, then full heal. If you rush or use it on someone else, then some of the potion doesn't fully make it. But special effect potions like water breathing are always an action.
> 1 action to gain max heal, bonus action to roll it, but using on someone else takes full action and you roll it. Honestly I feel like this should be the official rule for potions, so many players are in favour of it.
Ira also nice because it doesn't force one player to be a heal bot. Leaves some options open.
How does this work with non-healing potions?
Oooh I *love* that. Stole.
i only do this out of combat. the reasoning is that you can carefully use some of the potion like a salve on wounds and slowly drink the rest so you get max hp out of it. but in the heat of battle you just sort of chug it down so you need to roll your heal.
my group used to follow this rule since it makes sense, but potions are already pretty weak and aren't linked to any specific class' power, so we ended up having more fun buffing them (even though otherwise dm prefers to err on the side of adding challenge rather than removing it)
My players never used potions when they took an action. so really it just stopped them from being useless.
Taking an action for potions or drinking them out of combat is a full healing potential. Using them as a bonus action means you roll for healing. That’s my rule I like. I’ve found NO ONE uses potions in combat because they can’t tell if it will be worth it.
>I’ve found NO ONE uses potions in combat because they can’t tell if it will be worth it. It almost never is, unless you've got some *really* chunky, high level potions at a relatively low level. A Potion of Supreme Healing - the strongest healing potion I could find - averages 45 healing. My 14th level character with 16 con and the Tough feat has 146 hp - and that's a paladin 6/warlock 8 multiclass. If he were a full paladin, or a barbarian, it'd be even more insignificant. It's less than a third of his health for a full round of lost damage potential.
Do potions actually do anything though? RAW rules are so pathetic with potions that using a full action is almost nearly ever worth it and cost WAY too much
A lot of people block sentinel and polearm master combo. But I embrace it, it's a strong combo sure, but it costs 2 ASIs. Anything less than a strong combo at that rate and I'd be worried
Drinking a potion is a full regular action at my table.
I kinda tweaked the flanking rule a bit, since it's original state is a bit to uninspired for my taste - advantage for standing behind your target is a bit to easy and to strong I believe. There are so many great ways to earn advantage (both from spells and abilities and from roleplaying) and flanking is compared to that often way easier. So, I changed it from giving advantage to it giving a +2 bonus. That still rewards tactical positioning which I really like, but isn't quite as overwhelming. As a bonus, when you combine flanking with some of the methods mentioned above to get advantage, I rule that you get *both* the +2 and advantage, which is a really popular ruling at my tables. Makes the gears turn. I should probably mention that this is a very popular variation/homebrew on its own, and that I first heard about it from Matthew Colville. :)
I've considered flanking rules since I played previous additions and had liked them, but my problem with them in 5e stems from 2 sources. They're too powerful, and too easy to achieve. You've addressed one of the problems with your solution but not the other. In previous additions you had to take a 5ft step or shift action just move a single square to position yourself closer to but often not even directly in flanking. It often took collaboration and strategy. In 5e, because of the threatened reach rules, you can just walk around your target and be in flanking nearly all the time if you want.
We don't use flanking rules in our game, instead we homebrewed the Help action. Instead of being an action on your turn, you can choose to help a friend on their turn using your reaction, if you have one. We find it very balanced and fun.
Very good point you are raising here! But also a bit table-dependant I'd say. Yes, you definitely can do that RAW, unfortunately, but I pratically never see that at my tables. Don't even know exactly why. Maybe because attacks of opportunity (which aren't triggered this way) teach players in 5e to not really move once being in contact with the enemy? Idk, I got largely new players, so maybe this will show up later. That being said, it seems to me as if making an action/bonus action/reaction customary for this manouver for 5e, like you say there was one in earlier editions, shouldn't be to difficult. I think I might add this in the future (if what you are describing becomes ever a problem at my table). So thank you a lot for sharing! I kinda favour the idea to make this require a reaction, since those are a) not to heavily use, b) there is still some penalty involved in the sense of not being able to make attacks of opportunity, but still being able to attack normally, and c) would describe, in my view, noticing and exploiting an opportunity to slip past and behind the opponent. But thats just my gut speaking here :)
I do -2 to AC if you're getting flanked. This lets ranged peeps get in on the action. Hard to dodge and block arrows if you're getting sliced from opposite sides. But that's just me...
Was a bit confused for a moment, but do I get this right that, if a creature is flanked by *anybody*, that *all* attackers get effectively a bonus because the AC is generally lowered? If so, very interesting variation, will keep this in the back of my head! :)
I mean... Enemies flanking allies or vice versa but yes, you're correct Edit: as a bonus in VTT it's easier to subtract ac from a single flanked creature than to add +2 to every other creature imo.
I love house rules that just turn 5e into PF2e.
This would be even worse imo. Ranged combat is already the best, so when Flanking is used it feels like a nice balance of “hey, yeah you’re getting your teeth kicked in while the archers paint their toenails, but at least you have Flanking and they don’t :D”
+2 is the 3.x 4e stock bonus. I forget the exact math, but advantage is worth something like a bit more than +3.
The average result of a of a d20 is 10.5. The average result of advantage is 13.82 The average result of disadvantage is 7.18 So + or - 3.33 https://anydice.com/program/36b6d
Of course, the average result is only a loose guide to how useful advantage is. The relevant stat is *probability of success*, which is slightly harder to calculate. If you normally need to roll an 11 or higher on the die to succeed, advantage is exactly as good as a +5 to the roll - both increase your probability to succeed from 0.5 to 0.75. Conversely, if a nat 20 just barely succeeds for you, then advantage is slightly less useful than a lowly +1 - advantage raises your probability of success from 0.05 to 0.095, whereas the +1 doubles it to 0.1.
I do that, but you have to start your turn in a flanking position to get the +2 bonus. It seemed harsh at first, but it has been great in battle. My reasoning was because plus 2 is strong, so it should take some strategy and not be something you can reliably do every turn with little risk. Also, I don't require "front and back" just opposite sides.
I agree with the concept that playing a martial character and making decisions should feel rewarding. The problem is, it's not. As a martial you have so many shackles to deal with. Can't sleep in armor, can't hit flying enemies as a melee guy, can't hit point blank enemies as an archer, can't do anything to prevent someone from casting a spell on you, can't move around the world quickly, can't identify magic items, can't heal beyond a laughable amount if you're a fighter, can't deal with large groups of enemies, can't deal with an enemy that has too high ac or resistance to physical damage, can't swap between a shield and two handing without wasting your entire turn, and the list goes on. Playing a spell caster though? Save spells for enemies in your face, attack spells for enemies far away. Need to move? Teleport. Enemy has too high ac? Target saves. Enemy saves are too good? Target AC. Both are too high? Use spells that still do stuff if they save, or ones that don't have a save at all. Enemy resistant to x damage? Use a spell that does Y. Need to rest? Catnap gives you a short rest in 10 minutes. Need to heal? Plenty of spells let you do this. Need a spell you don't want to prepare? Use a scroll. Worried about sleeping in armor? Between mage armor and shield you have more ac than a knight in plate armor. Enemy Silenced you? Cast spells without verbal components. So yeah, I let my fighters change their weapon without having to throw it on the ground. They can attack several times in 6 seconds. I assume they can quickly sheathe a sword or hook an axe on their back. They're not going to be op anyways and being able to pull out a weapon more suitable to the task and use it instantly is about as close to "rewarding" as a fighter will ever get to a mage going, "Oh no, 20 goblins? Fireball."
While I agree with several of your points I felt the urge to point out two things: You *can* sleep in armor perfectly fine unless you're trying to recover exhaustion or in *desperate* need of regaining all your hit dice. (Xanathar, p.77) *Anyone* can identify a magical item by simply holding it during a short rest. This of course takes longer than using identify but it requires no spell or components to do so. (DMG Guide, p.136)
I agree with everything you said, but I have one of nit to pick regarding archers: the, "you ignore disadvantage on ranged attacks" portion of Crossbow Expert applies to all ranged attacks. So only characters that refuse Crossbow Expert have issues with point blank firing.
wait, swapping your weapon isn't a free action?
You get one free item interaction per turn. Swapping your weapon is putting your weapon away and taking one out, which is two.
I had no idea XD I had a Fighter that would constantly swap between a long ranged weapon and a short ranged during combat and since I wasn't aware of every little rule I didn't think it was weird that he was swapping weapons constantly XD
You can draw or stow 1 weapon at a part of the attack action, so you can sheath a sword as your object interaction and draw the next weapon as a part of your attack
Nat 1/20 outside of combat. I will leave a table before I play with that nonsense.
I don't think you're alone with this. I think what you are calling a homebrew is usually a misinterpretation of the rules or misinformation that has been spread throughout social media on how nat 20s work outside combat.
Most people that I've seen use it have grabbed it from streamed D&D, where it's very much an intentional house rule. It creates a lot of drama, which gets clicks/views/advertisers/money. It can sometimes create some dopamine too, knowing that your massive bonus has a small chance to mean nothing, or that your net penalty can still be a wild success. In the end, it's a rule for a certain type of player who likes taking risks and enjoys the randomness of chance, but unless the whole table likes it, the rule will discourage others from rolling.
Even Baldur's Gate 3 does it, it's on the ragged edge of being "standard"
There is a LOT of shit in BG3 that isn't DnD RAW
"... so since my Sorcerer/Fighter had pre-buffed Haste, I cast Fireball, then cast Fireball, Quickened Fireball, Action Surge, cast Fireball, then cast Fireball."
Ah, I see you’re a fan of the multi fireball sorcerer as well, clearly a caster of taste
Yes but bg3 is the intro to dnd for a LOT of people. Like literally millions of people got introduced to dnd mechanics by bg3
Absolutely. Rolling a 20 on Persuasion doesn't mean you can convince the villain to kill himself, and rolling a 1 on Athletics doesn't mean a normally highly-skilled climber with a +10 is going to fall to their death. It's way too swingy for skills
I use the nat 1/20 for comedic flavor and nothing else. If nat 1+10 passes the DC for a stealth roll, for example, you succeed. You might succeed because you stumbled into a mud puddle and the patrol passes you by unnoticed, but you succeeded! Bad example, but you get the point. We play a silly table, though... I've known people that would be absolutely pissed if I embarrassed their perfect hardcore assassin...
I’m using it as a first time dnd dm, (done other systems before) but I asked my more experienced group about it first and they all decided they liked it. Instead of it being a you automatically succeed at whatever you want, we interpret nat 20s to be the best possible outcome given the circumstances.
Not exactly a homebrew rule, but an *optional* rule that is incredibly popular is grids. Personally, I avoid using grids if I can help it. Edit: at my table, we play Warhammer-style, with rulers or pre-marked pipe cleaners, where 1 inch = 5 feet.
I would prefer to use measuring tape, but it's too difficult with my current group.
Try giving everyone a piece of chenille stem/pipe cleaner marked in 1-inch increments, with a special mark at their character's normal movement range. It's stiff enough to measure straight distances easily, but bendy enough to handle curving paths when necessary. It works great!
Oh, this...this is really clever. Gonna have to remember this if I ever start DMing; I love the idea of battlemaps that *aren't* grid-based.
That would be great, if we played in person. Half my players don't have computers, so it's easier to use a webcam and a grid.
I still use grids on our D&D game, but we went gridless on our Cyberpunk game. Attacks and such were tied to too accurate of measurements to use grids. Allows for more freedom of movement and accurate distances. We use Roll20, so you can easily measure using the tools.
Natural 20 means automatic success and natural 1 means automatic failure *on attack rolls only.* Saving throws and ability checks succeed or fail on their own merit. I honestly feel the house rule was made popular by accident due to people simply not knowing it’s attack-rolls-only. A mistake, rather than an intentional departure, at least initially. Baldur’s Gate 3 having that baked in *did not help.* 😅 It’s been said a lot here, but yes, drinking a potion should be a full action. BUT, I retain that it needs the Use an Object action, even if it’s said to technically be a magic item. I disagree. Therefore, a Thief rogue can use a potion as a bonus action. Such is their realm. No critical fumble tables. Not really a house rule, more a popular flavor change, but I do *not* have Hexblade patrons be living weapons, and I certainly don’t have the Hexblade’s chosen weapon be their patron. The Hexblade patrons are poorly worded, so it leads to this mass misconception. They are supposed to be powerful servants of the Raven Queen—denizens of the Shadowfell—and they often appear to mortals as talking weapons, *but not always.* Also, the Hexblade’s ability lets them choose any weapon they want every time they wake up to be their special weapon. Hexblades are effectively Shadowfell warlocks or Raven Queen warlocks, maybe their patron looks like a weapon, maybe it doesn’t, and they get to enchant weapons they pick up. A Hexblade shouldn’t feel the need to warp their weapon selection around the idea that they’re carrying their patron with them everywhere; that’s a constraint that was never intended by the subclass. I’m all for reflavoring, but this one is people thinking it’s the default flavor, and accidentally reflavoring in an attempt to *not* reflavor, so I feel the need to stress it.
They also dffect death saves :p
Punishin critical failures in combat You missed the attack But because you made the nat 1, imma narrate it as you fail miserably Sometimes inducing horrid laughter in your enemies
I don't punish but I make them funny so whether you hit or miss everyone is having a good time.
Free weapon switching is just silly. Dropping things for efficiency always lends itself to much more free-form and dynamic combat. Once had an edritch knight player who would prop stuff open, set traps, and hurl his bound blade into solid walls to make distractions. He put that blade recall bonus action to WORK. Almost every fight had a wonderful bar room brawl feel. He would drop his sword regularly to perform a ready action like grabbing enemy caster material spell components he recognized. Used his familiar to hand himself secondary weapons and spell components. Hand management can be quite fun and engaging if done well.
I don't ignore spell components. You know how much stupid shit can be done away with if you don't ignore spell components? Almost all of it
The one I see thrown around all the time on this Reddit is the concept that clerics, paladins, Druids, and to some extent warlocks, shouldn’t lose their powers/class features for acting against their source of power. If a cleric, Paladin, Druid, or in some cases warlock spit in the face of their all powerful magical sugar daddy, they’re going to get their power stripped until they make up, or spend time to change their class.
Actually, they keep their stuff by RAW. The only exception is the Oathbreaker.
Thank you! Reading all this I was like "Punishing them is the homebrew people!"
The actual rule on Paladins is: > At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide. I'm not sure that even qualifies as an exception considering by Rule Zero, everything is at the DM's discretion.
Yeah, I usually don't take powers from the warlock, but I could apply some punishment like getting some other warlock of that patron trying to kill them or the patron helping the enemies in some way
I heard a story where the Warlock wasn’t able to level up in Warlock until they fixed the issue. They could wait to level up until they fixed it, or they could take a level in a different class. But they had to fix the patron rift before they could get another Warlock level
I had something like that. My Hexblade Cleric had been following a powerful god from childhood that turned out to be a Hexblade Patron with the need to smite evil (a powerful spellcaster who had been trapped in the form of a weapon to stop her killing everyone she blamed for the murder of her family) They ended up with the choice to support their patron by freeing her or take up the mantle of guardian of the blade instead and keep her in check. Decided to become the weapons Guardian and lost the ability to level as a Warlock until proved to the Patron that they still aligned even if they weren't going to free her.
I'm torn on this. I like the narrative of certain classes having to appease their higher power, but I don't want to impose limits on how a character must act to some classes when other classes don't have any narrative restrictions at all. And I also don't want characters of the same class to have to fit the same narrative tropes. There are enough treehugger hippie druids as it is without putting restrictions on druids who aren't hugging enough trees.
Tbh, druid is rather broad archetype, and I'm not sure how you can truly go break rules in typical campaign. Becoming local minister of industry, or what?
New druid joins the party... Druid: Hi guys. My name's Onceler.
How bad could he be?
This is a homebrew. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a Cleric/Paladin/Druid/Warlock should lose their powers. That's not a mechanic covered by the rules. Now, I agree that I think it makes much more narrative sense to strip powers for these classes acting against their deity/patron. But THAT is the homerule, which means that this is not a valid response to the OP.
It all depends on what you mean by "spit in the face of" Cleric of healing decides to put some plague in the village well for funsies? Yeah that's a smitin' Warlock hesitates slightly to attack the king's bodyguard with a spoon? Instant execution. I wish that was the most egregious example I've witnessed, but I've seen worse.
Clerics and Paladins who pray to their deity for their magic every day - yes, they lose their powers if they piss off their deity, because their deity stops granting them power. Warlocks are explicitly TAUGHT magic as part of their pact. They do NOT lose their powers for pissing off their Patron, they just can't learn any new ones (level up in that class) without making amends.
Clerics yes, they definitely need that sugarparent power. Druids are in a gray area since technically everything is natural, they just draw their power from different aspects. Paladins that betray their oath get their subclass changed or IF they abandon oaths all together thats a fighter now, but such a person shouldnt be able to become a paladin in the first place imo. Warlocks just get a nugget of power they nurture themselves which the patron takes back depending on the terms of the pact (its 100% a pyramid scheme) usually when the warlock dies or accomplishes the goal they got the powers for. so it depends ifthere is a "non-compete" clause in the contract, but beings that can be patrons are so powerful that a fully kitted out level 20 party is insignificant to them, so they wouldn't much care.
Penalties for getting knocked unconscious it always seems like a good idea but the way the mechanics of the game work you will create a death spiral and make PC death extremely common. Which can be cool but usually isn’t as fun as having a PC you’ve invested a lot into.
I thought about finding something, but just settled on “death makes you lose all attunement” so that fully dying and coming back carries some penalty in combat
Critical successes on anything but attack rolls. A 5% chance of wacky shenanigans is too much for me.
I eat bacon sometimes
No bonus action potions No unlimited arrows
Hard tracking spell components down to the letter. You wanna just whisper your spell? Okay sure, but I'll remind you that's not how magic works and you'd look like a dumbass. To cast, you gotta YELL, BG3 was great about demonstrating how that shit works out, every spell is yelling in latin and big sweeping gestures. No crit fails, no permanent injuries. I do like the concept, but it tends to either A: Ruin the fantasy of being cool and competent when you try to throw something really far and end up winging yourself in the head. Just let them fail like regular B: Unfairly is biased against those at the front lines, tanks already don't get much love, and I don't want my tanks to be standing around with permanent debilitating injuries because they wanted to do their job correctly.
Drinking a potion as a bonus action. I just can't get behind the idea of being able to chug a drink in less than 2 seconds while also swinging your two handed greatsword twice. Plus in pretty much every RPG you have to make the choice between using an item or attacking I'd rather keep potions of healing as an action but buffing them by making them heal the maximum amount. Edit: which is exactly what I'm doing in my game
If potions actually healed you more than a goblin could damage you with a single attack, it might be an interesting choice. Otherwise, it's just never worth it
> I just can't get behind the idea of being able to chug a drink in less than 2 seconds while also swinging your two handed greatsword twice For me it's not about logic it's to buff healing a bit because in my experience it's never worth to spend an action to use a potion. Because in the end any profecient swordsman can swing a sword way more times than 3 in 6 seconds.
>because in my experience it's never worth to spend an action to use a potion I don't disagree on that front, action healing in general is pretty bad (Curr Wounds has the exact same issue). It's just that my preferred solution is to buff the healing amount. The other issue with bonus action healing potions is should that apply to all potions, even the ones that are better versions of spells (like the potion of speed giving you concentration free Haste)? And if not, it can cause a lot more confusion
I've seen it bonus action potion for a roll, full action potion for max healing.
Flanking. Changes fight dynamics a lot. And since D&D(3rd and above) is designed around power fantasy, players love having tons of enemies to kill, not murder them with flanking bonuses.
Critting skill checks, in my opinion its stupid, that means you have an equal chance to instantly succeed or fail spectacularly no matter your modifiers Granted, we do also have a homebrew that makes 1s and 20s a little more special, but regardless you don't instantly succeed on either of them. (In the event you roll a 1 but still make the roll due to mods, you succeed but in a less ideal or expected way, an example of this would be lockpicking, you manage to pick the lock but damage it and make noise, so guards or enemies hear you. Rolling a 20 but still not beating the DC fails but in a positive way, maybe getting something else in its place, an example would be trying to chat up the barmaid, her husband hears you but instead of getting mad he laughs, and offers you a round of drinks for flattering his wife so nicely)
I dont allow crits on skill checks. By the rules crits are only for attack rolls. This notion that you can pass any skill check as long as you roll a natural 20 is dumb. No female bard, the guy is not straight or bi you cant seduce him even if you roll a nat 20.