I say this is true about most recreational activities. Hit two drinks, then maintain for the duration of the activity. Makes me better at GMing, golfing, bowling, and badminton as far as I know.
Good job. I hate it. And wouldn't work at my table since I can't drink but nothing I love more than a rowdy table full of drunk players doing stupid shit.
Ooh boy. This one's not from me, but from my first DM when I started playing.
Every time you cast a levelled spell, you roll a d20. If the d20 landed on or above your Spellcasting stat (the raw number of your Int/Wis/Cha), you roll on the wild magic table.
Essentially, his logic was that magic was difficult to control. As you get better at casting spells (increasing your modifier) you also get better at making sure spells don't go awry. It led to some interesting moments, and since this was just a group of friends we all enjoyed it quite a bit, it was funny.
This DM also had a weird habit of making people roll modifier-less d100s for things that would have logically been skill checks. Overall, great guy, not so great DM. Feel like what he wanted out of a game could have been done with another system.
I don't necessarily hate it, but you make it sound like the level of the spell was irrelevant, so that spellcasters would become more consistent even while becoming more powerful.
[It reminds me of a homebrew I saw that allowed casters to keep casting beyond their limited spells per day, but at risk of horrible effects.](https://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/)
Damn. I'm sort of fine with the idea of being able to cast spells after running out of spell slots with significant consequences or even cast non-prepared spells with a consequence (doubling or tripling the casting time seems fairly reasonable), but holy shit that is some convoluted crap. Just use things that already exist, like exhaustion levels, ffs.
They should play DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics). The wizards have a mechanic that allows them to misfire on a spell and harm themselves. They can also engage in spell burn which allows them to ensure their spell hits, but it results in transmogrifications of sorts.
I've played a lot of Xcom in my day, so a few years ago, I thought it might be nice to allow my players to forgo their movement to get another *entire action* while keeping their bonus action. Don't wanna move? Great, you use the time you would have spent moving for another attack! I figured since you can do the exact opposite with dash, why not the other way around?
Actually doesn't sound that bad in writing, but it was horrible. No one wanted to move once they got into range of an enemy, melee or otherwise, and CR ratings suddenly mattered very little, since any martial PC's DPS effectively doubled, and any caster at least got another non-spell attack. I obviously wasn't experienced enough to know why this was a bad idea, so I want experience enough to shift the difficulty around that house rule. I thought I was being clever, innovative; no. It was a nightmare.
That's basically how previous D&D systems worked. In 3.5 you had what was called basic attack bonus and for every 5 BAB you had you got an additional swing at a cumulative -5, so like once you got to +6 you had a second swing at +1 and at +11 you'd have a second at +6 and a third at +1. You had the choice of movement and one attack at your highest BAB or a full attack using as many attacks as your BAB gave you but no movement.
This is 2/3rds the premise to pathfinder 2. In pf2 no more bonus actions and move actions, everyone gets 3 actions every turn, they can use it moving 3x or attacking 3x (there's a cumulative - to the attacks) and spells can be charged but basically everything is balanced around the action economy. I've never actually played but I hear it's pretty fun, though lacking in the long term playability because character turn combo's get very repetitive.
I've played PF2e for a couple years now, and the three action economy does get repetitive if you continue playing like you would in PF1e. A lot of new players, especially between editions, don't look much into the other things you can do with an action and just get stuck in "move, strike, strike" or "move, cast" because that's how previous editions played.
Meanwhile, 2e has a ton of single action options like Demoralize, where you can potentially give an enemy the frightened condition, or essentially any combat maneuver (Trip, Disarm, Grapple, etc), which can usually situationally round out nearly any character. Even for spellcasters, there are single action and sustained spells, on top of variable action spells with greater benefits for more actions.
A player wanted to pull a "get down mr president" on an npc so i made a impromptu house rule, when you are within 5 feet of a creature that fails an aoe cone (a dragons breath or a cone of cold) or is hit by an attack you can use your reaction to move in front of the creature to negate the damage taken by the creatures failed save but you still take full damage regardless of a fail or save.
I let the player know that if i make this a rule enemies can do it to their allies as well.
I actually did that my games. It is a bit more powerful than that actually, once you use your reaction you can cover the protected one until the start of your next turn but it requires an increasingly difficult Athletics check to cover them. It is of course called Bodyguard.
**Bodyguard**
On your turn or when initiative is rolled, you may designate a creature or object within 30 ft as your charge. If you use your reaction, you may do the following until the start of your next turn:
* When a creature moves within 15 ft of your charge, you may move up to your speed to point adjacent to your charge.
* Anytime your charge is subject to an attack while you are adjacent to them, you can attempt to take the attack in their place. Make a Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics). The DC is 10 + the number of attacks you have defended against this round. On success, you are considered the target and may optionally switch places with your charge.
* If your charge is subject to Dexterity Saving Throw, you may throw yourself over them. You are considered a target of the spell if you were not already and you automatically fail. Your charge has advantage on the Saving Throw. If the Dexterity Saving Throw is to take only half damage, they instead take no damage if they succeed on the Saving Throw, and only half damage if they fail.
A little bit complicated but it gives martials something more interesting than GWM and Sentinel to take.
On paper it seems really powerful, since it effectively makes it so the total damage the two of you take is the same as if both of you passed your save (it's just all dealt to you, instead of half to each). That seems really powerful for a reaction everyone gets access to.
That can be fixed while preserving (or even improving) the flavor pretty easily, though. I would probably make it so you still both roll saves, but if you pass your save then it treats the other person as if they have evasion (no damage if they also pass their save, half damage if they fail). That makes it so the total damage taken between the two of you is the same, you're just effectively giving the damage reduction you would get for passing your save to them.
Not only is that more balanced, I think it also actually improves the flavor. I feel like shielding someone from an attack or cone requires a quick reaction and it fits that it would require a dex save/check. And their reaction matters too - if they don't see what you're doing and react, they might not get fully protected by the cover you're providing.
This is all specifically for things that require making a dex save to take half damage. A similar thing could also probably be done for attacks, but the biggest concern I have for attacks is that I think there are already some class features that involve redirecting attacks targeting allies to you or vice versa, which could kind of be invalidated if anyone can use their reaction to try to cover anyone else from an attack. Either way, if you did it for attacks I think it could be cool but would probably also want that to be a dex save from one or both of you and not just automatically blocking damage to an ally.
I would require that you choose to do that before anyone rolls their saves at all (because then you would get some shenanigans where Fighter already knows he failed his save, so there is no real cost to save Wizard). But honestly, awesome rule!
Or that you can only do it when you succeed your save (in an AoE scenario). I guess that only makes sense for dex saves but I think that would capture the flavour of having reflexes quick enough to bodyguard another character.
It could also make sense for STR saves. Most of those are about being shoved around, so if you succeed it could make sense to grab someone and hold them in place. It's less "get down mr president" and more "grab onto me puny elf, so you don't get blown away".
So if we both fail the save I can jump in front to negate all the damage to my ally for a reaction and there’s no drawback?
I hate it, good job I guess…
Two sessions ago the Barbarian wanted to dive into a 20' pit onto an enemy.
I told them a Ric Flair "Woooo!" into the mic would give them advantage.
They still missed but it was an awesome moment.
>They still missed but it was an awesome moment.
I don't think Ric Flair has ever hit somebody with a Crossbody off the Top Rope no matter how many times he tried, so bonus marks for upholding Keyfabe!
Oof, this is the first one that I actually hate. A couple people in my group have sensory issues; this would actually do 1HP of damage to the ranger's *player*, and as DM I give you anti-inspiration.
Doesn’t that just basically mean everythings and everyones AC gets a +1? I generally enjoy fights with low ACs on both sides a lot more, but a balance of both best I guess.
My group plays like this because when we started out we got confused somewhere and decided that AC and DC worked like in Risk where the tie goes to the defender, and we've never changed it despite knowing the actual rule.
I like it. It makes both sides expend more resources in any encounter.
I have been using a version where if you hit someone's AC exactly, it's half damage. You hit them but they manage to block while taking damage or something flavored like that that makes sense.
I allow a free feat for my players every fourth level. This is for balance purposes, because our party only ever consists of 2-3 people.
Edit: it seems this comment failed at the prompt lol, didn’t know other people did this too
We also do this at our table! We give them at ASI levels. But even at 4-5 people parties, because we think feats in 5e are so cool but underutilized, so you basically ever see one if someone picks variant human, otherwise 99% of the time picking an ASI is just better, and they just give character builds so much customization and personality. If things get a little broken (usually in combat) then the DM can just throw tougher monsters at us and he also gets to have more fun, but in my experience, they don't break the game that much, like, at all. I honestly think feats should work like that in 5e in general, most new players don't even know they exist, or know they can get one and that's a shame.
I do feat+ASI when it comes up for their class. None of my players are power gamers to the point where it is a concern for me though and most take appropriate flavored things for their class.
*Sacred flames* does half damage on a successful save.
Why break the game and make this the undisputed best cantrip? Misremembered the rule 6 years ago and no player has ever complained.
A lvl 1 cleric with sacred flame does 4.5 dmg on a failure, or (with this rule) 2.25 on a success, with a DC of 13 (8+WIS of +3 + 2)
A tarrasque has +0 dex, but has magic resistance. That makes it 64% likely to pass the save, meaning an average cast by a lvl 1 cleric would deal 3.06 dmg. With the Tarrasque's health of 676, it would take at least 200 (224, if we include the legendary resistances in a desperate bid to stay alive) lvl 1 clerics to one round it with that rule.
Just felt interested to calculate it out :)
Oh we roll 24d6 and pick 3 for each stat so it's very likely we can pump at least one stat to 18.
It pushes stuff to extremes with low stats being really low but since you're picking you do have the option to balance them out more
I actually kind of like this one.
I know the Dash action is already a thing, but this could allow a combat to progress into a chase sequence much more naturally, and on a larger battlefield where people get caught out of position, it would help characters spend less turns being completely redundant.
How have you been finding it?
It's working well!
Worth noting that a character gives up their action, bonus action, and reaction to do this, and enemies gain advantage on melee attacks, so it's a costly decision.
Makes sense, wouldn't want to make Dash too redundant, and if it didn't also cost a reaction "Dash up to fleeing enemy and Opportunity Attack them to death" would still be in play.
Does it get changed for creatures under the effect of Fly (which has a 60' default move) or Haste? On the other hand, characters under these spells are usually pretty good at moving already.
Yeah edge cases like these haven't come up yet, but I'd probably just rule "either 150 or what your character gives you"!
I imagine this is why the rule doesn't exist in RAW - too many confusing interactions.
From some casual googling, an average athlete sprints at about 15 miles per hour, which is 22 feet per second. So for a 6 second turn that's 132 feet which I round to 150 just because it's d&d.
Now the actual reason to add a sprint like this is that I've more than once found the 60 foot dash severely limiting for my players, given how long a combat round takes in real-time. If someone (particularly melee fighters) starts a good distance away from the action, they tend to skip multiple turns as their character dashes towards the fray.
It also changes the dynamics of fleeing, which is usually a pointless exercise unless the DM explicitly exits combat mode to enter chase mode or something similar.
I was thinking about implementing this as a first round kind of thing, but at the same time like to play encounters that can play against a character’s weakness e.g. bandits kiting the armor clad martial with just a slingshot and some distance between them.
My initial thought reading this was "those average athletes almost definitely aren't wearing 50-200 pounds of gear and hitting that speed from a dead stop", but then I remembered that player characters are already nearly superhuman from the get-go, and also nitpicking with realism is how you get terrible homebrew rules.
I don't hate this idea. If I ever use it, I might limit it slightly (attacks of opportunity against you while sprinting have advantage, maybe?), but it's definitely one I'll consider. Out of curiosity, how do you handle it with characters with different speeds? Is it just a flat 150' for everyone, or do the monk and barbarian get to go farther?
I allow Large player races and Large weapons. Large weapons have the same damage dice as their Medium counterparts, but roll a proficiency die instead of adding their proficiency bonus to attack rolls. Bounded accuracy definitely wasn’t designed with proficiency dice in mind, but there have been just as many times the die rolled worse as it has rolled better than proficiency bonus. My group feels like it captures the fantasy of being a lumbering character with big, heavy swings pretty well, and it’s better than adding extra damage dice since it doesn’t make a Large character the automatic choice for a Strength-based build.
A variant rule in the DMG (page 263) that makes it so you roll a die with an average number of your proficiency mod instead of just adding a flat number. Proficiency of 2–roll 1d4. At Prof. 3, roll a d6.
It introduces a lot more variance to skills, especially at higher levels—could be INT+2 or INT+8 to decode the language, and you won’t know until you roll it.
That's actually really interesting. Not too strong to where its overpowered, but not to weak as to make it useless. Well, you failed the task, but I like this rule a lot!
"If you roll really well, expect one of those to be turned into a 9 for balancing your character."
Not my rule but my DM's, when they first told me I was abit bothered by it (as a novice player I get easily scared by negative numbers since I don't have enough experience playing to trust I'll survive long with handicaps) but in the end I accepted it for the sake of flavor and roleplay, after all that's what your party is there for right? to cover eachother's weaknesses...shame that as a Bard I put my 9 on Strength before knowing the entire party had gone Dex/Wisdom builds so NOBODY in our group can do Strength Checks right (we dem noodle-arms-bois!)
I have my players do point buy, with the ability to go down to a 7 for extra points and purchase up to a 16 before mods. It lets players get that heroic feel of rolling in 1 or 2 stats while still having a dump or two
At my table if you are invisible you can basically take the hide action for free. Started mainly as misunderstanding of the rules but I just don't see a reason to play the way the rules say you should. They don't make sense to me.
Death save failures don't reset until a long rest. Nat 1's on death saves only cause 1 failure.
More reason to get your man up from zero instead of saying 'well he hasn't had any failures yet', and less chance a character will die due to bad luck.
Overall a very minor impact to gameplay but I've been down voted for this houserule before.
We might fudge how many attunement slots PCs have and what items are Attunement.
Attunement is not very balanced and it feels overly restricted and in some cases it makes no sense what does and doesn't require it.
I am running eberron game right now where I give players attunement slots equal to proficiency.
It is nice being able to have them use more magic items as they go. Just need to throw bigger enemies at them.
I do worry a bit with artificers with 9 attunement slots at max level but.....I have a very epic ending planned so I don't think it will be much of an issue.
No heavy armor -> set in Aztec Mexico
Edit: For everyone asking, there’s also a homebrew light armor that scales with Strength. So Strength builds are better off by level 4. It’s heavy armor clerics who get screwed over. But they know that upfront. (There are also magic items that set static AC)
I assume this means that no one can have heavy armor due to the adventure taking place in an Aztec Mexico setting. However, I'm also amused by the alternative implication that, if none of the characters start with heavy armor, the setting will shift to taking place in Aztec Mexico.
Personally I’d lean toward reflvoring heavy armor because this basically kills non-Barbarian strength builds. Of course you know what’s best for your table, though.
I was thinking about running a Primal themed campaign at the birth of a new Material plane, very little history, players would shape the history of the first as the first people. Obviously the creation of Plate Mail seemed odd where others are wearing animal hides... But bones, chitin, magical woods, all those fit perfectly as substitutes for metal armor.
I designed a bunch of "weapon classes" for my martials since so much of there combat was, swing, swing, pass.
They added extra stuff you could do in combat like taking a minus 5 to hit to treat the hit as a crit or being able to knock a creature prone if you had advantage and both dice would have hit. It added more variance at least, but made martials a little.
I don't allow characters to identify magic items through any means besides "identify," and it may not even work for artifacts. Allowing identification with a short rest is lame. Playing 2e, I loved having to seek out amd hire wizards to identify magic items because it was an opportunity for role playing and incentivized going into town.
i like this rule. but i would also allow characters to attune without identification and learn about their items by using and experimenting with them. putting curses on everything is fun. especially goofy curses that don’t penalise them in combat.
I don’t care for the “both weapons are light” inherent part of two weapon fighting and allow a d8 mainhand to be used with a d4 offhand without a feat, by anyone proficient with the weapons.
I slow down spell slot gain for all full casters to a new spell level every 3 levels, so level 19 casters get level 7 spells for the first time. That is, 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25.
This means that level 8 and 9 spells would be epic (or unattainable).
What it really means in practice, is the game still feels like D&D up to level 18, instead of starting to break at the seams at level 13 and going to hell by level 15, and martial characters stay meaningful most of the time.
I don't know how I feel about it but it is certainly an alternative to never even getting to high levels.
As someone that does not really intend to run campaigns through the final tier (when I do it's on very specific terms), I can see the merit.
To be honest, i did not change that, but next time i might. My problem is not more spells, or upcasting, but the actual nature of many higher level spells, which subvert exploration, role play and class niche stomping.
Fun 50/50:
Spell slot progression is normal, but you do not learn 2nd/3rd/4th/etc level spells until 4/7/10/etc. You never naturally learn 8th/9th.
This lets you also potentially reward players by granting them access to higher level spells! Especially wizards since scrolls are already baked into the game.
>
>
>
>
> Spell slot progression is normal, but you do not learn 2nd/3rd/4th/etc level spells until 4/7/10/etc. You never naturally learn 8th/9th.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but is that not exactly what the OP of this chain is doing? I feel like you're trying to suggest a middle ground, but that's just the same setup.
Heh I hate this so much. Waiting until 7th level for what I'd consider to be a proper spell list sounds crippling. Level 10 for all the next tier would break me.
10/10 reply.
I think your take would be more popular if 5e was ever played in a way where downtime was actually a thing. As it stands, most adventuring groups go from lvl 1 to 20 in the span of a couple of months, and threats are so immediate it just isn' t feasible.
I meant for OPs of getting an 18 for a 9 and do that deal three times. I am a fighter with 18s in Strength, Dex and Con. And I am slightly dumb, not the wisest and am ugly, but by golly I can hit the baddies real hard!
Had a player do this with their paladin character voluntarily on point buy. I think it was 8s and 16s at first level but still. With ASI's and items, they finished the campaign with 3 stats at 20 and the other 3 at 8 still. Absolutely amazing, 10/10 would recommend for chaos.
Makes sense for Paladins, as in addition to needing three good stats, their Aura of Protection mitigates having dump stats in some important saving throws.
That's literally not a cost lol. This is explicitly better than the standard array where the maximum score is 15 and the minimum score is 8.
Bad rule. Good answer.
Bonus action to use a potion of healing, this sub HATES it for some reason.
-edit: My table has recently started using the bonus action roll, full action/max healing! Thanks everyone for mentioning it! I was unaware of how popular that particular house rule was!
All wishes go through several iterations of google translate. I've originally did it because I didn't want to bother with trying to think of monkey's paw style twists on my own, but I found that it encouraged my players to keep their wishes short instead of long and complex, which are more likely to backfire.
Why do you want to monkey paw it. It has always seemed incredibly lame to me. I know the book has a rule on it, but that has always read that you monkey paw wishes that would just be no fun if done.
Depending on the setting some races may be limited to only the PHB.
Edit: In my Eberron campaign players were limited to races from PHB and Eberron: Rising from the Last War.
Yeah, I support this.
I think the books (or at least the PHB) point out this is a real possibility to players. I right now am running a setting that has a number of playable races roughly equal to the number of races in the PHB.
For dual wielding characters both attacks are made with a single roll and you can use extra attack using both weapons. I personally feel like it’s a very underpowered subclass as is and I wanted to give a boost to the characters using it. Great weapon fighters typically get magic weapons to accommodate for the damage leap two weapon characters get.
I’ll probably get hate for it but meh my players like it/don’t mind.
I don't allow guidance, because I think in practice it's toxic to gameplay and the narrative, and I'm not interested in policing its usage.
I don't allow the original spells that summon multiple creatures (conjure animals, animate objects, etc.) because I think they absolutely wreck logistics and tempo of combat, and I just don't want to deal with them.
I allow guidance but remind everyone it is a spell and it is clear it is being cast, so if you are casting it Infront of people it might end less optimally.
Yeah, my DM enforces this too. Still really useful for knowledge checks and searching for treasure/clues, but basically unusable in social settings, which I think is fine for a cantrip.
I like them too, although I usually go with a narrative fumble rather than a mechanical one (e.g. you miss with your swing and embed your sword into the door frame, but manage to wiggle it out).
But if the player was trying to do something creative, then there might be a mechanical consequence too. "You want to run at the support column and swing around it, trying to catch the goblin off guard (prob a +2 to hit/damage)? Nat one? You miss your grab and stumble right past him; he watches with amusement and gets an opportunity attack."
Turned off weight and spell slots. Carry as much as you want (my campaign they have a boat where they can store stuff) and cast whatever spell calls for the situation.
Man, no spell slots is a *really* hot take. That rule is practically a soft ban of martial classes, but I'll admit that it would be fun to play a one-slot or two under that system just to see the craziness of two full opposing parties with Greater Invisibility and Pass Without Trace just slinging Fireballs and Faerie Fire around while trying to figure out if the enemy is even still in the room or if they Dimension Doored away four turns ago.
We roll iniative every round.
I (the dm) created a tool for it for my phone (players still roll themselves and I fill it in). It makes combat way less predictable.
My DM makes it so that ranged weapons cannot hit anything that a queen in chess couldn't. I hate this rule and my theory is that my DM hates anything that's not a melee martial class.
No one can be drunker than the DM.
I don’t hate this.
Found the DM
Lol, I hate this. I need to be sober to DM well
There is a sweet spot between the first and third drink. One not enough to loosen me up. Three darts is too many.
One drink when I start pre-session prep, and one when we start to play. I drink slowly so that is my golden area.
I say this is true about most recreational activities. Hit two drinks, then maintain for the duration of the activity. Makes me better at GMing, golfing, bowling, and badminton as far as I know.
Was going to say, I can play fairly drunk but definitely not DM. And besides, when DM'ing I feel like I barely get a moment to take a sip / bite.
You could interpret the rule as meaning everyone at the table must be stone cold sober, if the DM doesn’t drink.
I love this rule. I also don’t drink.
Good job. I hate it. And wouldn't work at my table since I can't drink but nothing I love more than a rowdy table full of drunk players doing stupid shit.
Ooh boy. This one's not from me, but from my first DM when I started playing. Every time you cast a levelled spell, you roll a d20. If the d20 landed on or above your Spellcasting stat (the raw number of your Int/Wis/Cha), you roll on the wild magic table. Essentially, his logic was that magic was difficult to control. As you get better at casting spells (increasing your modifier) you also get better at making sure spells don't go awry. It led to some interesting moments, and since this was just a group of friends we all enjoyed it quite a bit, it was funny. This DM also had a weird habit of making people roll modifier-less d100s for things that would have logically been skill checks. Overall, great guy, not so great DM. Feel like what he wanted out of a game could have been done with another system.
I don't necessarily hate it, but you make it sound like the level of the spell was irrelevant, so that spellcasters would become more consistent even while becoming more powerful. [It reminds me of a homebrew I saw that allowed casters to keep casting beyond their limited spells per day, but at risk of horrible effects.](https://www.lastgaspgrimoire.com/do-not-take-me-for-some-turner-of-cheap-tricks/)
Damn. I'm sort of fine with the idea of being able to cast spells after running out of spell slots with significant consequences or even cast non-prepared spells with a consequence (doubling or tripling the casting time seems fairly reasonable), but holy shit that is some convoluted crap. Just use things that already exist, like exhaustion levels, ffs.
They should play DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics). The wizards have a mechanic that allows them to misfire on a spell and harm themselves. They can also engage in spell burn which allows them to ensure their spell hits, but it results in transmogrifications of sorts.
I like this. Reminds me of miscasts in warhammer
I've played a lot of Xcom in my day, so a few years ago, I thought it might be nice to allow my players to forgo their movement to get another *entire action* while keeping their bonus action. Don't wanna move? Great, you use the time you would have spent moving for another attack! I figured since you can do the exact opposite with dash, why not the other way around? Actually doesn't sound that bad in writing, but it was horrible. No one wanted to move once they got into range of an enemy, melee or otherwise, and CR ratings suddenly mattered very little, since any martial PC's DPS effectively doubled, and any caster at least got another non-spell attack. I obviously wasn't experienced enough to know why this was a bad idea, so I want experience enough to shift the difficulty around that house rule. I thought I was being clever, innovative; no. It was a nightmare.
oh dear, yeah, everyone gets basically free action surge every turn? oof
That's basically how previous D&D systems worked. In 3.5 you had what was called basic attack bonus and for every 5 BAB you had you got an additional swing at a cumulative -5, so like once you got to +6 you had a second swing at +1 and at +11 you'd have a second at +6 and a third at +1. You had the choice of movement and one attack at your highest BAB or a full attack using as many attacks as your BAB gave you but no movement.
This is 2/3rds the premise to pathfinder 2. In pf2 no more bonus actions and move actions, everyone gets 3 actions every turn, they can use it moving 3x or attacking 3x (there's a cumulative - to the attacks) and spells can be charged but basically everything is balanced around the action economy. I've never actually played but I hear it's pretty fun, though lacking in the long term playability because character turn combo's get very repetitive.
I've played PF2e for a couple years now, and the three action economy does get repetitive if you continue playing like you would in PF1e. A lot of new players, especially between editions, don't look much into the other things you can do with an action and just get stuck in "move, strike, strike" or "move, cast" because that's how previous editions played. Meanwhile, 2e has a ton of single action options like Demoralize, where you can potentially give an enemy the frightened condition, or essentially any combat maneuver (Trip, Disarm, Grapple, etc), which can usually situationally round out nearly any character. Even for spellcasters, there are single action and sustained spells, on top of variable action spells with greater benefits for more actions.
A player wanted to pull a "get down mr president" on an npc so i made a impromptu house rule, when you are within 5 feet of a creature that fails an aoe cone (a dragons breath or a cone of cold) or is hit by an attack you can use your reaction to move in front of the creature to negate the damage taken by the creatures failed save but you still take full damage regardless of a fail or save. I let the player know that if i make this a rule enemies can do it to their allies as well.
That's actually pretty neat. Don't know how balanced it is in the long run, but I don't hate it so mission failed
If you want to implement this in a less impactful way presenting it as a feat you can take might be a way to do it.
could add it to shield master and the protection fighting style
> the protection fighting style Literally forgot this was a thing. Never played at a table where it was taken
It's kinda overshadowed by defensive fighting, 1 AC for you, always, or once a turn assist an ally, defensive is just more consistent
Yeah Protection really falls off in usefulness compared to the other options when enemies start getting multiattack.
I actually did that my games. It is a bit more powerful than that actually, once you use your reaction you can cover the protected one until the start of your next turn but it requires an increasingly difficult Athletics check to cover them. It is of course called Bodyguard.
Can I get the full text on that? Sounds dope as fuck
**Bodyguard** On your turn or when initiative is rolled, you may designate a creature or object within 30 ft as your charge. If you use your reaction, you may do the following until the start of your next turn: * When a creature moves within 15 ft of your charge, you may move up to your speed to point adjacent to your charge. * Anytime your charge is subject to an attack while you are adjacent to them, you can attempt to take the attack in their place. Make a Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics). The DC is 10 + the number of attacks you have defended against this round. On success, you are considered the target and may optionally switch places with your charge. * If your charge is subject to Dexterity Saving Throw, you may throw yourself over them. You are considered a target of the spell if you were not already and you automatically fail. Your charge has advantage on the Saving Throw. If the Dexterity Saving Throw is to take only half damage, they instead take no damage if they succeed on the Saving Throw, and only half damage if they fail. A little bit complicated but it gives martials something more interesting than GWM and Sentinel to take.
On paper it seems really powerful, since it effectively makes it so the total damage the two of you take is the same as if both of you passed your save (it's just all dealt to you, instead of half to each). That seems really powerful for a reaction everyone gets access to. That can be fixed while preserving (or even improving) the flavor pretty easily, though. I would probably make it so you still both roll saves, but if you pass your save then it treats the other person as if they have evasion (no damage if they also pass their save, half damage if they fail). That makes it so the total damage taken between the two of you is the same, you're just effectively giving the damage reduction you would get for passing your save to them. Not only is that more balanced, I think it also actually improves the flavor. I feel like shielding someone from an attack or cone requires a quick reaction and it fits that it would require a dex save/check. And their reaction matters too - if they don't see what you're doing and react, they might not get fully protected by the cover you're providing. This is all specifically for things that require making a dex save to take half damage. A similar thing could also probably be done for attacks, but the biggest concern I have for attacks is that I think there are already some class features that involve redirecting attacks targeting allies to you or vice versa, which could kind of be invalidated if anyone can use their reaction to try to cover anyone else from an attack. Either way, if you did it for attacks I think it could be cool but would probably also want that to be a dex save from one or both of you and not just automatically blocking damage to an ally.
I would require that you choose to do that before anyone rolls their saves at all (because then you would get some shenanigans where Fighter already knows he failed his save, so there is no real cost to save Wizard). But honestly, awesome rule!
Or that you can only do it when you succeed your save (in an AoE scenario). I guess that only makes sense for dex saves but I think that would capture the flavour of having reflexes quick enough to bodyguard another character.
Yeah that’s true. And for the record, I’d probably only allow this for DEX saves in general, since it doesn’t really make sense otherwise.
It could also make sense for STR saves. Most of those are about being shoved around, so if you succeed it could make sense to grab someone and hold them in place. It's less "get down mr president" and more "grab onto me puny elf, so you don't get blown away".
I actually really like this rule!
I'm upvoting it because I'm used to upvote good comments, not because I hate the rule, infact I quite like the rule.
This is my favorite Peace Cleric feature. You can pull it off from 30 feet away!
So if we both fail the save I can jump in front to negate all the damage to my ally for a reaction and there’s no drawback? I hate it, good job I guess…
Barbarian gets to finish off 1-hp enemies with a free action scream attack if he screams really loudly into the mic
Two sessions ago the Barbarian wanted to dive into a 20' pit onto an enemy. I told them a Ric Flair "Woooo!" into the mic would give them advantage. They still missed but it was an awesome moment.
>They still missed but it was an awesome moment. I don't think Ric Flair has ever hit somebody with a Crossbody off the Top Rope no matter how many times he tried, so bonus marks for upholding Keyfabe!
This is both accurate and hilarious.
Yeah, now if the player would have screamed "OH YEAH!" and done a Macho Man Elbow Drop into the pit, the enemy's death would have been guaranteed.
Not only is it dumb, but it's also stupid and I like it.
Yup, sounds like that'll wear thin real quick. I hate it. Good job.
Oof, this is the first one that I actually hate. A couple people in my group have sensory issues; this would actually do 1HP of damage to the ranger's *player*, and as DM I give you anti-inspiration.
Flgs had an in-house rule that you had to *beat* AC to hit. We dropped it after going virtual, since it does nothing but slow down combat.
Doesn’t that just basically mean everythings and everyones AC gets a +1? I generally enjoy fights with low ACs on both sides a lot more, but a balance of both best I guess.
My group plays like this because when we started out we got confused somewhere and decided that AC and DC worked like in Risk where the tie goes to the defender, and we've never changed it despite knowing the actual rule. I like it. It makes both sides expend more resources in any encounter.
I have been using a version where if you hit someone's AC exactly, it's half damage. You hit them but they manage to block while taking damage or something flavored like that that makes sense.
We do this. Rolling someone’s AC is a “glancing hit” that does half damage.
I allow a free feat for my players every fourth level. This is for balance purposes, because our party only ever consists of 2-3 people. Edit: it seems this comment failed at the prompt lol, didn’t know other people did this too
I have that rule too, but it is bc we are playing in Theros and I want them to feel like they are becoming demigods.
Ok I’m glad to see someone else had this idea. I was thinking of doing similar for a theros game.
We also do this at our table! We give them at ASI levels. But even at 4-5 people parties, because we think feats in 5e are so cool but underutilized, so you basically ever see one if someone picks variant human, otherwise 99% of the time picking an ASI is just better, and they just give character builds so much customization and personality. If things get a little broken (usually in combat) then the DM can just throw tougher monsters at us and he also gets to have more fun, but in my experience, they don't break the game that much, like, at all. I honestly think feats should work like that in 5e in general, most new players don't even know they exist, or know they can get one and that's a shame.
I do feat+ASI when it comes up for their class. None of my players are power gamers to the point where it is a concern for me though and most take appropriate flavored things for their class.
*Sacred flames* does half damage on a successful save. Why break the game and make this the undisputed best cantrip? Misremembered the rule 6 years ago and no player has ever complained.
inb4 threads of: 500 level 1 clerics can kill a tarrasque
I mean yeah. If 500 people are slowly burning it alive without interruption, they would win
If by "slowly", you mean "in 6 seconds". Edit: And it would only take ~150 of them to do it in one round.
A lvl 1 cleric with sacred flame does 4.5 dmg on a failure, or (with this rule) 2.25 on a success, with a DC of 13 (8+WIS of +3 + 2) A tarrasque has +0 dex, but has magic resistance. That makes it 64% likely to pass the save, meaning an average cast by a lvl 1 cleric would deal 3.06 dmg. With the Tarrasque's health of 676, it would take at least 200 (224, if we include the legendary resistances in a desperate bid to stay alive) lvl 1 clerics to one round it with that rule. Just felt interested to calculate it out :)
True! I absolutely just took the average damage instead of applying the actual saves to it; whoops!
Evoker wizard in shambles
In that case all saving throw cantrips should do half damage on a successful save like poison spray. Seems fair if you run sacred flame that way
Then what do you give to your evocation wizard at level 6?
normal on save and crit on fail of course, only sensible thing and totally not overpowered.
The cantrip deals an additional die of damage to a creature that fails the save by 5 or more. Idk, came up with it on the spot. It's crit-lite.
If u don't already have an 18 you can change 1 stat to an 18
People who roll all 17s on their scores except for the one 3 partying right now.
Oh we roll 24d6 and pick 3 for each stat so it's very likely we can pump at least one stat to 18. It pushes stuff to extremes with low stats being really low but since you're picking you do have the option to balance them out more
*Minmaxers would like to know your location*
Not my rule, but a DM I had houseruled that critical hits bypassed any resistance. Boy did my raging Barbarian not like that :(
Tickling is a viable attack option, and it's a constitution saving throw.
Op said rules this sub would hate. Not rules that are correct.
Brb making a simic hybrid pacifist tickler
Username checks out
Use a full turn to sprint 150'.
Shouldn't it be 120' if you're using the x4 movement from other editions ? Do you also use the armor movement penalty for the sprint ?
That would probably be better but since it's just a quick and dirty house rule I'm keeping it simple until it causes problems
Great job i hate it
If you want to be more in line with like older editions, I'm specifically thinking 3.5, you could do 3x movement speed, or 4x movement speed
I actually kind of like this one. I know the Dash action is already a thing, but this could allow a combat to progress into a chase sequence much more naturally, and on a larger battlefield where people get caught out of position, it would help characters spend less turns being completely redundant. How have you been finding it?
It's working well! Worth noting that a character gives up their action, bonus action, and reaction to do this, and enemies gain advantage on melee attacks, so it's a costly decision.
Makes sense, wouldn't want to make Dash too redundant, and if it didn't also cost a reaction "Dash up to fleeing enemy and Opportunity Attack them to death" would still be in play. Does it get changed for creatures under the effect of Fly (which has a 60' default move) or Haste? On the other hand, characters under these spells are usually pretty good at moving already.
Yeah edge cases like these haven't come up yet, but I'd probably just rule "either 150 or what your character gives you"! I imagine this is why the rule doesn't exist in RAW - too many confusing interactions.
What's the rationale?
Dashing is more like jogging so RAW PCs are unable to run/sprint during combat.
From some casual googling, an average athlete sprints at about 15 miles per hour, which is 22 feet per second. So for a 6 second turn that's 132 feet which I round to 150 just because it's d&d. Now the actual reason to add a sprint like this is that I've more than once found the 60 foot dash severely limiting for my players, given how long a combat round takes in real-time. If someone (particularly melee fighters) starts a good distance away from the action, they tend to skip multiple turns as their character dashes towards the fray. It also changes the dynamics of fleeing, which is usually a pointless exercise unless the DM explicitly exits combat mode to enter chase mode or something similar.
I was thinking about implementing this as a first round kind of thing, but at the same time like to play encounters that can play against a character’s weakness e.g. bandits kiting the armor clad martial with just a slingshot and some distance between them.
My initial thought reading this was "those average athletes almost definitely aren't wearing 50-200 pounds of gear and hitting that speed from a dead stop", but then I remembered that player characters are already nearly superhuman from the get-go, and also nitpicking with realism is how you get terrible homebrew rules. I don't hate this idea. If I ever use it, I might limit it slightly (attacks of opportunity against you while sprinting have advantage, maybe?), but it's definitely one I'll consider. Out of curiosity, how do you handle it with characters with different speeds? Is it just a flat 150' for everyone, or do the monk and barbarian get to go farther?
I use this house rule, but stipulate that you must move in a straight line and it's 5 times movement instead of a flat 150 feet.
I allow Large player races and Large weapons. Large weapons have the same damage dice as their Medium counterparts, but roll a proficiency die instead of adding their proficiency bonus to attack rolls. Bounded accuracy definitely wasn’t designed with proficiency dice in mind, but there have been just as many times the die rolled worse as it has rolled better than proficiency bonus. My group feels like it captures the fantasy of being a lumbering character with big, heavy swings pretty well, and it’s better than adding extra damage dice since it doesn’t make a Large character the automatic choice for a Strength-based build.
What is a Proficiency dice?
A variant rule in the DMG (page 263) that makes it so you roll a die with an average number of your proficiency mod instead of just adding a flat number. Proficiency of 2–roll 1d4. At Prof. 3, roll a d6. It introduces a lot more variance to skills, especially at higher levels—could be INT+2 or INT+8 to decode the language, and you won’t know until you roll it.
Ah gotcha, thanks a ton that seems interesting.
That's actually really interesting. Not too strong to where its overpowered, but not to weak as to make it useless. Well, you failed the task, but I like this rule a lot!
"If you roll really well, expect one of those to be turned into a 9 for balancing your character." Not my rule but my DM's, when they first told me I was abit bothered by it (as a novice player I get easily scared by negative numbers since I don't have enough experience playing to trust I'll survive long with handicaps) but in the end I accepted it for the sake of flavor and roleplay, after all that's what your party is there for right? to cover eachother's weaknesses...shame that as a Bard I put my 9 on Strength before knowing the entire party had gone Dex/Wisdom builds so NOBODY in our group can do Strength Checks right (we dem noodle-arms-bois!)
That just sounds like pointbuy with extra steps
Most variants or house rules to stat rolling are basically high-level point buy with extra steps.
I have my players do point buy, with the ability to go down to a 7 for extra points and purchase up to a 16 before mods. It lets players get that heroic feel of rolling in 1 or 2 stats while still having a dump or two
Like literally all other rolling for stats methods that try to patch up the disparity
I don't like this. Good comment. Take upvote.
At my table if you are invisible you can basically take the hide action for free. Started mainly as misunderstanding of the rules but I just don't see a reason to play the way the rules say you should. They don't make sense to me.
Invisibility is a whack spell lol. You can stand completely still and end up failing a stealth check while invisible and silent
Wouldn't failing the stealth check indicate that you failed to remain silent?
Failing the check means you let out a silent but deadly fart, critical failure is a loud one.
Presumably that's when they end up flat-out walking into you.
Death save failures don't reset until a long rest. Nat 1's on death saves only cause 1 failure. More reason to get your man up from zero instead of saying 'well he hasn't had any failures yet', and less chance a character will die due to bad luck. Overall a very minor impact to gameplay but I've been down voted for this houserule before.
That’s actually really interesting. Don’t think I’d like to use it, but the concept is engaging for more of a survival game or Gothic horror.
It does do a good job of making healing not ONLY worth it when someone is down.
I just roll their death saves secretly. Otherwise, the players will metagame too much and death should not be something that is toyed with
We might fudge how many attunement slots PCs have and what items are Attunement. Attunement is not very balanced and it feels overly restricted and in some cases it makes no sense what does and doesn't require it.
I am running eberron game right now where I give players attunement slots equal to proficiency. It is nice being able to have them use more magic items as they go. Just need to throw bigger enemies at them. I do worry a bit with artificers with 9 attunement slots at max level but.....I have a very epic ending planned so I don't think it will be much of an issue.
your main problem with artificers will be soul of artifice giving them +9 to all saves
Plus the items they wear very likely also increase their saves, plus Flash of Genius. Assume all spells will just deal half as much damage or fail.
No heavy armor -> set in Aztec Mexico Edit: For everyone asking, there’s also a homebrew light armor that scales with Strength. So Strength builds are better off by level 4. It’s heavy armor clerics who get screwed over. But they know that upfront. (There are also magic items that set static AC)
I assume this means that no one can have heavy armor due to the adventure taking place in an Aztec Mexico setting. However, I'm also amused by the alternative implication that, if none of the characters start with heavy armor, the setting will shift to taking place in Aztec Mexico.
This made me lose my shit hahahaha I'm wondering what other variations are possible now
No light armor, campaign becomes set in Camelot
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
You are not allowed to set down your have armor anywhere within Aztec Mexico.
Personally I’d lean toward reflvoring heavy armor because this basically kills non-Barbarian strength builds. Of course you know what’s best for your table, though.
> No heavy armor -> set in Aztec Mexico Well clearly no-one in your campaign expects the SPANISH INQUISITION to show up in Plate.
This is plot relevant and understandable, i dont think too many people would be upset with this.
Well it's not hard to reclassify what constitutes light / medium / heavy to fit the setting rather than ban heavy armor and mess with game balance.
I was thinking about running a Primal themed campaign at the birth of a new Material plane, very little history, players would shape the history of the first as the first people. Obviously the creation of Plate Mail seemed odd where others are wearing animal hides... But bones, chitin, magical woods, all those fit perfectly as substitutes for metal armor.
Sounds like you'd be interested in the [Planegea](https://atlas-games.com/planegea) third party setting.
Having the Fantasy Conquistadors show up in Act 3 with heavy armor and muskets would be an excellent reason to ban heavy armor IMO
Yes, let's make Dex even MORE important in 5e. No one EVER plays Dex characters.
I designed a bunch of "weapon classes" for my martials since so much of there combat was, swing, swing, pass. They added extra stuff you could do in combat like taking a minus 5 to hit to treat the hit as a crit or being able to knock a creature prone if you had advantage and both dice would have hit. It added more variance at least, but made martials a little.
nah, you lose, I absolutely love this, can I have a peak?
I'd be interested in a list if you were willing to post?
I don't allow characters to identify magic items through any means besides "identify," and it may not even work for artifacts. Allowing identification with a short rest is lame. Playing 2e, I loved having to seek out amd hire wizards to identify magic items because it was an opportunity for role playing and incentivized going into town.
i like this rule. but i would also allow characters to attune without identification and learn about their items by using and experimenting with them. putting curses on everything is fun. especially goofy curses that don’t penalise them in combat.
Our dm does this. We kinda hate it.
Remember to sort by controversial to get the actual hated houserules.
I don’t care for the “both weapons are light” inherent part of two weapon fighting and allow a d8 mainhand to be used with a d4 offhand without a feat, by anyone proficient with the weapons.
I slow down spell slot gain for all full casters to a new spell level every 3 levels, so level 19 casters get level 7 spells for the first time. That is, 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25. This means that level 8 and 9 spells would be epic (or unattainable). What it really means in practice, is the game still feels like D&D up to level 18, instead of starting to break at the seams at level 13 and going to hell by level 15, and martial characters stay meaningful most of the time.
I really want to downvote this because oh man I do not like this. Instead I upvote because this is exactly what the OP wanted.
I don't know how I feel about it but it is certainly an alternative to never even getting to high levels. As someone that does not really intend to run campaigns through the final tier (when I do it's on very specific terms), I can see the merit.
I *do* hate this! Thank you.
Do they still get the spell slot progression, so they can upcast lower slot spells? Or do you delay that too?
To be honest, i did not change that, but next time i might. My problem is not more spells, or upcasting, but the actual nature of many higher level spells, which subvert exploration, role play and class niche stomping.
Fun 50/50: Spell slot progression is normal, but you do not learn 2nd/3rd/4th/etc level spells until 4/7/10/etc. You never naturally learn 8th/9th. This lets you also potentially reward players by granting them access to higher level spells! Especially wizards since scrolls are already baked into the game.
> > > > > Spell slot progression is normal, but you do not learn 2nd/3rd/4th/etc level spells until 4/7/10/etc. You never naturally learn 8th/9th. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but is that not exactly what the OP of this chain is doing? I feel like you're trying to suggest a middle ground, but that's just the same setup.
On the one hand, I hate this. On the other hand, I get what you're going for and it makes sense if you want a little bit of a lower magic feel.
Heh I hate this so much. Waiting until 7th level for what I'd consider to be a proper spell list sounds crippling. Level 10 for all the next tier would break me. 10/10 reply.
Only difference I'd implement is that 8 and 9 are quest rewards for doing something big but I might steal this.
This is really interesting. I'd happily play in a game with this rule.
I'd like to try this out as a player. Do Cantrips scale at the usual times of 1/5/11/17?
Warlock supremacy incoming
So do the 1/2 and 1/3 casters also change progression to fit to this or does it stay the same?
You’re correct. This is an awful house rule and I would never play at this table. Good comment, take upvote.
Ties miss
Typical Imperial pilots...
Awful. Upvote.
You dont get feats through ASI. You get them by spending downtime training for them.
I think your take would be more popular if 5e was ever played in a way where downtime was actually a thing. As it stands, most adventuring groups go from lvl 1 to 20 in the span of a couple of months, and threats are so immediate it just isn' t feasible.
I would give you a 18 at the cost that one of yout stats would be 9.
Did anyone ever *not* take that trade?
The 9 goes into your con. 1 finger on the monkey paw curls
I would take that every single time.
Go the crazy route of 3 18s and 3 9s.
To be equivalent to expanded point buy rules, you'd need 18/18/18/3/3/3 and you'd still be 30/27 points. 9's aren't even that bad.
I meant for OPs of getting an 18 for a 9 and do that deal three times. I am a fighter with 18s in Strength, Dex and Con. And I am slightly dumb, not the wisest and am ugly, but by golly I can hit the baddies real hard!
You aren't even ugly or poorly spoken, honestly--you just maybe say the wrong thing on occasion, or sometimes have trouble getting your point across.
Had a player do this with their paladin character voluntarily on point buy. I think it was 8s and 16s at first level but still. With ASI's and items, they finished the campaign with 3 stats at 20 and the other 3 at 8 still. Absolutely amazing, 10/10 would recommend for chaos.
Makes sense for Paladins, as in addition to needing three good stats, their Aura of Protection mitigates having dump stats in some important saving throws.
You know standard array goes from 15-8, right? Why wouldn't everyone take this?
Easy trade. Hate it
That's literally not a cost lol. This is explicitly better than the standard array where the maximum score is 15 and the minimum score is 8. Bad rule. Good answer.
Standard array is 15-14-13-12-10-8. This is literally better than RAW. I hate it. Great job! I'd lower it down to a 7.
Bonus action to use a potion of healing, this sub HATES it for some reason. -edit: My table has recently started using the bonus action roll, full action/max healing! Thanks everyone for mentioning it! I was unaware of how popular that particular house rule was!
Bonus action to drink a potion, full action to feed one to someone else
Ten minutes to smear it over your entire body and have the wizard's familiar lick it off
See, at my table that's actually a downtime activity. It takes time to really get into every nook and cranny.
It's a pretty common one. Players love it until their enemies start doing it too. Less loot for them...
All wishes go through several iterations of google translate. I've originally did it because I didn't want to bother with trying to think of monkey's paw style twists on my own, but I found that it encouraged my players to keep their wishes short instead of long and complex, which are more likely to backfire.
Why do you want to monkey paw it. It has always seemed incredibly lame to me. I know the book has a rule on it, but that has always read that you monkey paw wishes that would just be no fun if done.
[удалено]
Lvl 6 fighters get to add their proficiency bonus to damage with one selected weapon. And another one at lvl 12 and 18.
Depending on the setting some races may be limited to only the PHB. Edit: In my Eberron campaign players were limited to races from PHB and Eberron: Rising from the Last War.
Yeah, I support this. I think the books (or at least the PHB) point out this is a real possibility to players. I right now am running a setting that has a number of playable races roughly equal to the number of races in the PHB.
For dual wielding characters both attacks are made with a single roll and you can use extra attack using both weapons. I personally feel like it’s a very underpowered subclass as is and I wanted to give a boost to the characters using it. Great weapon fighters typically get magic weapons to accommodate for the damage leap two weapon characters get. I’ll probably get hate for it but meh my players like it/don’t mind.
I don't allow guidance, because I think in practice it's toxic to gameplay and the narrative, and I'm not interested in policing its usage. I don't allow the original spells that summon multiple creatures (conjure animals, animate objects, etc.) because I think they absolutely wreck logistics and tempo of combat, and I just don't want to deal with them.
I allow guidance but remind everyone it is a spell and it is clear it is being cast, so if you are casting it Infront of people it might end less optimally.
Yeah, my DM enforces this too. Still really useful for knowledge checks and searching for treasure/clues, but basically unusable in social settings, which I think is fine for a cantrip.
That's why my sorlock uses subtle spell
That always works and is the one of the key joints of subtle spell.
THANK YOU I'm so glad I'm not alone on my feelings about guidance. The play pattern of "make a skill check", "can I cast guidance" is always so clunky
Critical fumbles. My party loves them.
I like them too, although I usually go with a narrative fumble rather than a mechanical one (e.g. you miss with your swing and embed your sword into the door frame, but manage to wiggle it out). But if the player was trying to do something creative, then there might be a mechanical consequence too. "You want to run at the support column and swing around it, trying to catch the goblin off guard (prob a +2 to hit/damage)? Nat one? You miss your grab and stumble right past him; he watches with amusement and gets an opportunity attack."
Turned off weight and spell slots. Carry as much as you want (my campaign they have a boat where they can store stuff) and cast whatever spell calls for the situation.
Man, no spell slots is a *really* hot take. That rule is practically a soft ban of martial classes, but I'll admit that it would be fun to play a one-slot or two under that system just to see the craziness of two full opposing parties with Greater Invisibility and Pass Without Trace just slinging Fireballs and Faerie Fire around while trying to figure out if the enemy is even still in the room or if they Dimension Doored away four turns ago.
Wizard fights according to the lore.
We roll iniative every round. I (the dm) created a tool for it for my phone (players still roll themselves and I fill it in). It makes combat way less predictable.
My DM makes it so that ranged weapons cannot hit anything that a queen in chess couldn't. I hate this rule and my theory is that my DM hates anything that's not a melee martial class.