I jotted down some rules for a forthcoming session zero (and possibly any other future session zeroes) and would like to know what everyone thinks. Any red flags? What would you add or delete?
Rules of the game
Evil characters are NPCs. Players cannot start with a evil alignment and if alignment shifts to evil during play the character will be retired.
Reasoning: The DM does not want to run a villainous game.
No monstrous adventurers (from Volo's).
Exception: with the right backstory one (1) player might be allowed to play one of these races.
Reasoning: Hero's from these races are phenomenally rare.
Arcane/druidic/holy foci can be used for somatic and/or zero cost material components. A focus does not need to be stowed when casting spells with somatic but not material components.
Reasoning: This is to clarify and reduce any confusion around using foci.
For two weapon fighting the weapon used for the attack action needs only to be used in one hand. The main hand weapon does not need to be light.
Reasoning: Historically two weapon fighting was mostly done with sword or rapier and dagger. Without this rule a player would have to take a feat to fight this way and then two longswords or two rapiers would be the better option.
Flanking provides +2 to hit (as opposed to advantage per the DMG)
Reasoning: Being surrounded in combat should be a bad thing for whoever is being surrounded but advantage is too big a bonus.
Recovering from 0 hp bestows a level of exhaustion.
Reasoning: This is to impose a 'cost' to being reduced to 0 hp.
The Wish spell is removed from all spell lists. Magic items with this ability may still exist.
Reasoning: The Wish spell is so good it is often the only (or first) pick for 9th level. This rule is to hopefully provide some more choice and variety at high level.
Added from suggestions below…
Player characters are adventuring together and for the most part the adventure will be about them as a group. The majority of game time will be used to focus on the group. Individual plot lines might be followed up on using downtime rules or emails with the DM outside of the game.
Reasoning: We are all devoting a portion of our time to the game and should be given a fair amount of game time to participate.
A critical hit on an attack roll does maximum dice damage plus a roll of all dice. For example, a rogue sneak attacking with a rapier for 1d8+4 +2d6 would now inflict 24(maximum damage) +1d8+2d6 on a critical hit.
Reasoning: This insures that critical hits do at least a little more than maximum damage.
A big one that I would add is: "Whatever your character's reasoning for adventuring, for the sake of having a functional game, remember that you are all an adventuring party together."
If multiple people had cool monstrous race backstories, why not let both play?
Exhaustion on 0 hp seems a bit harsh.
Most games don't get to 9th level spells, but for wish, why not just limit it to the middle 3 options:
You allow up to twenty creatures that you can see to regain all hit points, and you end all effects on them described in the greater restoration spell.
You grant up to ten creatures that you can see resistance to a damage type you choose.
You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours. For instance, you could make yourself and all your companions immune to a lich's life drain attack.
I really like these consider stolen :). I don't think the exhaustion hitting 0 is to much. I was thinking about if a player wanted to play a rare race they could roll d100 and have to roll under say 20% for really rare to maybe 50-60% for not so rare.
I think on the racial restriction, you either go all or nothing. As someone above said what if two people have a cool backstory. Seems like your penalizing one of them for being a bit slower to speak up about it. Besides, PCs are inherently rare individuals, why not let there be two of them?
On flanking, do you mean opposite side flanking like 3e, or just two adjacent enemies like in this edition. Either way, I’d be wary of it, could impact the math. Ditto the two weapon fighting. It would allow bigger damage dice and make the style much stronger, and could maybe do away with DEX fighter builds, since why bother with finesse weapons . Historical accuracy is all well and good, but historically there were no dragons or ogres or magic spells and the different sorts of armor available were from different eras. Seems weird to pick fighting with two weapons and say that’s the one spot where you must to be true to history.
A big one that I would add is: "Whatever your character's reasoning for adventuring, for the sake of having a functional game, remember that you are all an adventuring party together."
If multiple people had cool monstrous race backstories, why not let both play?
Exhaustion on 0 hp seems a bit harsh.
Most games don't get to 9th level spells, but for wish, why not just limit it to the middle 3 options:
You allow up to twenty creatures that you can see to regain all hit points, and you end all effects on them described in the greater restoration spell.
You grant up to ten creatures that you can see resistance to a damage type you choose.
You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours. For instance, you could make yourself and all your companions immune to a lich's life drain attack.
Thanks for the comments. I will totally be adding your part about being in it together. Although to be honest the evil part and playing together hasn't been a big issue for my recent group. Its more for new people and just to have it written down so it is clear.
Partly the monstrous races thing is my issue. I don't really want to DM a group of monstrous races no matter how good the backstories but am willing to at least consider some characters. I may need to speak to my preference in the rule.
As all the defenders of the berserker tell me, one level of exhaustion is not that big a deal. I have been bouncing several ideas in my head on how to make dropping to 0hp seem like a bad thing and with that in mind I think one level of exhaustion when dropping to 0 wont have a big impact but will give the situation the seriousness I crave. I am open to suggestions if you have one but I really do not like how characters in D&D can spring back from near death with hardly any issues at all.
With regards to Wish...I am currently playing in a game of 17th+ level characters and have run a few games to these levels in past editions. Both our party wizard and bard picked wish as soon as they could and even though they have other 9th level spells they almost never cast them. Just the ability to cast any 8th level or lower spell without material components makes it good enough to take priority over other 9th level spells. I mean they can cast Resurrection better than my cleric because it has no cost and is just one action. Rather than bother with gimping the spell I would just assume take it out of players hands until they find a magic item or a djinn or something. This way I, as the DM, have more control over how often it shows up in my game.
I really like these consider stolen :). I don't think the exhaustion hitting 0 is to much. I was thinking about if a player wanted to play a rare race they could roll d100 and have to roll under say 20% for really rare to maybe 50-60% for not so rare.
Thanks! Steal away!
I thought about placing more limits on player races to make rare races feel rare but ultimately figured I would just focus on the monstrous races for now.
I think on the racial restriction, you either go all or nothing. As someone above said what if two people have a cool backstory. Seems like your penalizing one of them for being a bit slower to speak up about it. Besides, PCs are inherently rare individuals, why not let there be two of them?
On flanking, do you mean opposite side flanking like 3e, or just two adjacent enemies like in this edition. Either way, I’d be wary of it, could impact the math. Ditto the two weapon fighting. It would allow bigger damage dice and make the style much stronger, and could maybe do away with DEX fighter builds, since why bother with finesse weapons . Historical accuracy is all well and good, but historically there were no dragons or ogres or magic spells and the different sorts of armor available were from different eras. Seems weird to pick fighting with two weapons and say that’s the one spot where you must to be true to history.
I do worry about +2 while flanking. This will make any creature with pack tactics especially powerful for sure. The host of Taking20 recommended just a +1 bonus for flanking but I feel that this is too statistically irrelevant. I think +2 is a big enough bonus that characters will want to use tactics to avoid it (or gain it) but not so big as to completely sway a fight.
The two weapon rule is not solely based on history but also on my experiences in game. So far almost all of our fighters and paladins have been DEX based because Dexterity is wayy overvalued as a stat. And the DEX characters I see are not using two weapons. They are going with rapier and shield. There are just too many other uses for a bonus action rather than to trade it for an extra attack. Same for rogues. A two weapon fighting rogue has to pick between cunning actions or an attack. Usually the cunning action wins. So allowing two weapon melee characters to up their main attack damage to d8's instead of d6's sounds fairly safe. If a STR based fighter wants to toss his +2 AC shield to burn up his bonus action for a 1d6 or 1d4 attack I say that is a fair trade. If anything I hope to actually SEE someone using two weapon fighting with this rule in place.
As a player I would be fine with these rules but I have a house rule that works for a lot of things and would apply here being if they can explain it they can do it. Say for instance my player bob wants to play a race that is almost always evil such as drow but plays the character a neutral or good character if bob can explain it then all is well but if they can’t come up with anything well then they need to think of something else I really like to rely on the fact that dnd is a game of your imagination so your imagination is the limit but it allows a lot of weird moments but just remember it’s a game so anything that happens isn’t a super big deal just as long as you have fun doing it.
I really like these consider stolen :). I don't think the exhaustion hitting 0 is to much. I was thinking about if a player wanted to play a rare race they could roll d100 and have to roll under say 20% for really rare to maybe 50-60% for not so rare.
Thanks! Steal away!
I thought about placing more limits on player races to make rare races feel rare but ultimately figured I would just focus on the monstrous races for now.
I am wanting to run a PHB only game. Players can only use stuff from that book. And I was thinking if someone wanted to play a rare they could roll it. I think I am going to add the Rangers get a + 2 against their chosen enemy type, then +4/+2 when they get greater . Because it makes sense to me. I really like the exhaustion from hitting 0 HP. I also like the heal potions as a bonus action. Crits will just do double damage like old days. Roll all damage dice add it up, times it by two, bam.
As long as the DM and the players discuss the ground rules in advance and agree to them, then that's all that really matters. Personally, I would be fine playing in a game with those rules.
And frankly, the biggest drawback D&D has, imho, is that death (or dropping to 0 hp) is nothing more than a brief and minor inconvenience. So I like the idea of conferring a level of exhaustion on a character who comes back from death's door. I also like the homebrew resurrection rules that Critical Role uses, wherein bringing someone back from death requires an elaborate ritual and a dice roll that might still fail.
As far as the 9th level spell concern - you could just categorically state that Wish is not an option. Just strike it from the spell lists. But there are rumors of an ancient artifact that presumably had the power to grant its owner a Wish, but that might just be an old wives tale. If the player really wants to cast Wish, they'll first have to undertake an arduous trek to find that artifact.
In fact, I have considered going one step further in future campaigns regarding 9th level spells in general. So... 9th level spells are The Most powerful forms of magic available. We're talking about a level of power far beyond what any mortal being could normally be expected to withstand. Our bodies simply aren't equipped to serve as conduits for such massive power. So.... perhaps.... whenever anyone casts any 9th level spell, they must also roll a d20. On a roll of 1, they have to make a Con save, DC 19. If they fail the Con save, something horrible happens to them. Basically, they've blown a fuse. Maybe they take a large amount of psychic damage, maybe they gain a permanent insanity, maybe all their remaining spell slots get used up, maybe they open a rift to a random plane. Either way, the spell still works as written, but there's a very small chance of blowing a fuse. So they're free to cast their spells, but there'll always be a bit of hesitation to throw around such power willy-nilly.
Anything to instill a bit of fear and unpredictability into their lives, to help them keep perspective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Lots of good House Rule ideas here. I like the level 9 spell rules as an idea, though I might not use it just as written above.
I feel like I played in a campaign once where 9th level spells were not things you could just learn. You essentially had to complete a quest or somehow otherwise do something amazing to acquire one, but I don’t remember the details anymore. It’s been decades....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It may have been AD&D... I don’t recall and I am rather sure this was known as a fact of our campaign (whether a house rule or game rule) in the background but that we never got anywhere near the ability to cast 9th level spells. Most of the time our parties would cap out around level 6 and then we would get tired of D&D and switch to Star Frontiers or Champions or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Looking to make the nat 20 a crit roll. I like the idea from the old rules. I am thinking of either max weapon damage add modifiers, Or double damage. I think double damage could be pretty devastating to an NPC. Thoughts? Thanks
Looking to make the nat 20 a crit roll. I like the idea from the old rules. I am thinking of either max weapon damage add modifiers, Or double damage. I think double damage could be pretty devastating to an NPC. Thoughts? Thanks
In combat, a natural 20 is already a critical hit, and lets you roll all damage dice twice. (This is equivalent on average to max weapon damage add modifiers, a bit less than double damage because the modifiers don't get doubled.) See https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#CriticalHits .
On the Nat20 front, I think that nothing quite sucks like rolling a Nat20 and then rolling two 1s on the damage roll :p
So, my house rule on Nat20s is you get the doubled damage dice, but the extra dice ( and only the extra dice ) are counted as if they rolled max damage.
So - if you had an attack which did 1d8+4 damage, and you hit with a Nat20, your damage is 1d8+4+8, with the last 8 being the maxed out second die. Rolling 2d6+3 would be 2d6+3+12 on a Nat20.
This means that a Nat20 will always do more than the maximum damage of a regular damage roll, but still allows for some variation and extra luck.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
On the Nat20 front, I think that nothing quite sucks like rolling a Nat20 and then rolling two 1s on the damage roll :p
So, my house rule on Nat20s is you get the doubled damage dice, but the extra dice ( and only the extra dice ) are counted as if they rolled max damage.
So - if you had an attack which did 1d8+4 damage, and you hit with a Nat20, your damage is 1d8+4+8, with the last 8 being the maxed out second die. Rolling 2d6+3 would be 2d6+3+12 on a Nat20.
This means that a Nat20 will always do more than the maximum damage of a regular damage roll, but still allows for some variation and extra luck.
I have heard this suggested before. Or maybe something similar. I will totally be adding it to my own rules.
Lots of good House Rule ideas here. I like the level 9 spell rules as an idea, though I might not use it just as written above.
I feel like I played in a campaign once where 9th level spells were not things you could just learn. You essentially had to complete a quest or somehow otherwise do something amazing to acquire one, but I don’t remember the details anymore. It’s been decades....
What your remembering are the rules for AD&D for spell acquisition if I'm not mistaken. As I recall there were a number of road blocks. For one, you had to have an 18 in Int to even be able to cast 9th level spell which was a rare character indeed given random attribute generation. Next the chance to know a listed spell was based on a % roll. You could improve your odds by doing research, but ultimately it was up to lady luck. Finally 9th level spells specifically had additional hurdles that were required, like raising a mages tower in a powerful magic zone and creating a circle of casters before the spell could be learned. Suffice to say in AD&D days everything was always more complicated then simply leveling up when it came to mages, it was a really tough class to run, but man where they off the chain powerful when they succeeded.
Yeah, AD&D was a different animal. One thing I think modern designers forget about is that wizards used to be balanced by the experience required for each level. The magic user (as it was known back in the day) was one of the most expensive classes to level past level 10. So much so that a player of a fighter might be several levels ahead of a higher level wizard. And rogues would be well beyond the fighter in level!
Since I have not seen a 9th level spell cast other than wish I think I will wait before I put brakes on any other spell. I don't even think Time Stop is the monster it used to be.
My ONLY grip with this is the evil character thing because evil is such a poorly respresented alignment. Evil in a lot of cases simply just means selfish. Like how not all good people will simply risk there lifes for the world not all evil peopel will just murderer anyone because...they find it a wacky sort of fun
Like a lawful evil person might be a completely upstanding citizen who adventurers with heroes to gain poltical goody points so that they are seen in a better light and able to get away with more while still appearing good.
A neutral evil person might do things for there own self interest and see joining the party as a way to gain riches and stuff while also having no qualms or compassion for using underhanded means the the more good aligned party members might not resort to
and chaotic evil might be completely driven by there hatred for an enemy they share with the party but have absolutely no problem anilating anything that gets in there way with no second thoughts what so ever or be after a huge amount of wealth and not be afraid to anything to get it but realize that betraying the party probably won't turn out good
my overall point is to not say that evil alignments are ban but banning manically evil people who have good reason to work outright against the party. It might be harder to work a truely evil character into the campaign but a lesser evil can easily fit in. Like the fighter who lost his family and has no qualms or comassion about getting his revenge who might eventually become good as he starts to warm up to the party. The skilled noble who uses this as a politcal manuver to gain favor in the kingdom. Or just a general bad person who wants to get rich quick. Evil characters might have a bit of a harder time fitting in and it should be talked about more in session zero so everyone is on the same page and you're free to not allow certain things but looking over evil might be work a second
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Marvarax andSora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
The PHB gives us some guidelines on evil alignments. This is what I start with when thinking about alignments.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
While I certainly agree that being overly selfish or self centered is a character flaw I would not agree that is evil in and of itself. Evil characters are selfish PLUS. They want to impose their will on others, cannot feel successful unless others suffer and/or are happy to subject others to cruelty and suffering. Basically they are the bad guys in any story worth paying attention to. I will agree that it might be fun to play Thanos in a game and I am sure a group might have fun playing a party of such characters but, more importantly, I would not have fun DMing that game. My rule is not designed to castigate evil players but rather make sure the DM has as much fun as everyone else.
Would I play in a evil campaign? Sure, I would play even though I prefer good alignments. Have I run evil campaigns? Yep, and my experience is they never work out and usually devolve into player versus player conflicts that foster bad feelings outside of the game. Would I run a evil campaign again? Nope, been there and done that and it is not for me. I like to play the hero and I like telling the story about the hero (or heroine). Does this mean that other peoples fun is bad? Nope, just not for me much like skateboarding.
Folks,
I jotted down some rules for a forthcoming session zero (and possibly any other future session zeroes) and would like to know what everyone thinks. Any red flags? What would you add or delete?
Rules of the game
Evil characters are NPCs. Players cannot start with a evil alignment and if alignment shifts to evil during play the character will be retired.
Reasoning: The DM does not want to run a villainous game.
No monstrous adventurers (from Volo's).
Exception: with the right backstory one (1) player might be allowed to play one of these races.
Reasoning: Hero's from these races are phenomenally rare.
Arcane/druidic/holy foci can be used for somatic and/or zero cost material components. A focus does not need to be stowed when casting spells with somatic but not material components.
Reasoning: This is to clarify and reduce any confusion around using foci.
For two weapon fighting the weapon used for the attack action needs only to be used in one hand. The main hand weapon does not need to be light.
Reasoning: Historically two weapon fighting was mostly done with sword or rapier and dagger. Without this rule a player would have to take a feat to fight this way and then two longswords or two rapiers would be the better option.
Flanking provides +2 to hit (as opposed to advantage per the DMG)
Reasoning: Being surrounded in combat should be a bad thing for whoever is being surrounded but advantage is too big a bonus.
Recovering from 0 hp bestows a level of exhaustion.
Reasoning: This is to impose a 'cost' to being reduced to 0 hp.
The Wish spell is removed from all spell lists. Magic items with this ability may still exist.
Reasoning: The Wish spell is so good it is often the only (or first) pick for 9th level. This rule is to hopefully provide some more choice and variety at high level.
Added from suggestions below…
Player characters are adventuring together and for the most part the adventure will be about them as a group. The majority of game time will be used to focus on the group. Individual plot lines might be followed up on using downtime rules or emails with the DM outside of the game.
Reasoning: We are all devoting a portion of our time to the game and should be given a fair amount of game time to participate.
A critical hit on an attack roll does maximum dice damage plus a roll of all dice. For example, a rogue sneak attacking with a rapier for 1d8+4 +2d6 would now inflict 24(maximum damage) +1d8+2d6 on a critical hit.
Reasoning: This insures that critical hits do at least a little more than maximum damage.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
A big one that I would add is: "Whatever your character's reasoning for adventuring, for the sake of having a functional game, remember that you are all an adventuring party together."
If multiple people had cool monstrous race backstories, why not let both play?
Exhaustion on 0 hp seems a bit harsh.
Most games don't get to 9th level spells, but for wish, why not just limit it to the middle 3 options:
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I really like these consider stolen :). I don't think the exhaustion hitting 0 is to much. I was thinking about if a player wanted to play a rare race they could roll d100 and have to roll under say 20% for really rare to maybe 50-60% for not so rare.
As a player all of these would be fine with me.
As a former DM in 1e, I see no issues.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think on the racial restriction, you either go all or nothing. As someone above said what if two people have a cool backstory. Seems like your penalizing one of them for being a bit slower to speak up about it. Besides, PCs are inherently rare individuals, why not let there be two of them?
On flanking, do you mean opposite side flanking like 3e, or just two adjacent enemies like in this edition. Either way, I’d be wary of it, could impact the math.
Ditto the two weapon fighting. It would allow bigger damage dice and make the style much stronger, and could maybe do away with DEX fighter builds, since why bother with finesse weapons . Historical accuracy is all well and good, but historically there were no dragons or ogres or magic spells and the different sorts of armor available were from different eras. Seems weird to pick fighting with two weapons and say that’s the one spot where you must to be true to history.
Thanks for the comments. I will totally be adding your part about being in it together. Although to be honest the evil part and playing together hasn't been a big issue for my recent group. Its more for new people and just to have it written down so it is clear.
Partly the monstrous races thing is my issue. I don't really want to DM a group of monstrous races no matter how good the backstories but am willing to at least consider some characters. I may need to speak to my preference in the rule.
As all the defenders of the berserker tell me, one level of exhaustion is not that big a deal. I have been bouncing several ideas in my head on how to make dropping to 0hp seem like a bad thing and with that in mind I think one level of exhaustion when dropping to 0 wont have a big impact but will give the situation the seriousness I crave. I am open to suggestions if you have one but I really do not like how characters in D&D can spring back from near death with hardly any issues at all.
With regards to Wish...I am currently playing in a game of 17th+ level characters and have run a few games to these levels in past editions. Both our party wizard and bard picked wish as soon as they could and even though they have other 9th level spells they almost never cast them. Just the ability to cast any 8th level or lower spell without material components makes it good enough to take priority over other 9th level spells. I mean they can cast Resurrection better than my cleric because it has no cost and is just one action. Rather than bother with gimping the spell I would just assume take it out of players hands until they find a magic item or a djinn or something. This way I, as the DM, have more control over how often it shows up in my game.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Thanks! Steal away!
I thought about placing more limits on player races to make rare races feel rare but ultimately figured I would just focus on the monstrous races for now.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
I do worry about +2 while flanking. This will make any creature with pack tactics especially powerful for sure. The host of Taking20 recommended just a +1 bonus for flanking but I feel that this is too statistically irrelevant. I think +2 is a big enough bonus that characters will want to use tactics to avoid it (or gain it) but not so big as to completely sway a fight.
The two weapon rule is not solely based on history but also on my experiences in game. So far almost all of our fighters and paladins have been DEX based because Dexterity is wayy overvalued as a stat. And the DEX characters I see are not using two weapons. They are going with rapier and shield. There are just too many other uses for a bonus action rather than to trade it for an extra attack. Same for rogues. A two weapon fighting rogue has to pick between cunning actions or an attack. Usually the cunning action wins. So allowing two weapon melee characters to up their main attack damage to d8's instead of d6's sounds fairly safe. If a STR based fighter wants to toss his +2 AC shield to burn up his bonus action for a 1d6 or 1d4 attack I say that is a fair trade. If anything I hope to actually SEE someone using two weapon fighting with this rule in place.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
As a player I would be fine with these rules but I have a house rule that works for a lot of things and would apply here being if they can explain it they can do it. Say for instance my player bob wants to play a race that is almost always evil such as drow but plays the character a neutral or good character if bob can explain it then all is well but if they can’t come up with anything well then they need to think of something else I really like to rely on the fact that dnd is a game of your imagination so your imagination is the limit but it allows a lot of weird moments but just remember it’s a game so anything that happens isn’t a super big deal just as long as you have fun doing it.
I am wanting to run a PHB only game. Players can only use stuff from that book. And I was thinking if someone wanted to play a rare they could roll it. I think I am going to add the Rangers get a + 2 against their chosen enemy type, then +4/+2 when they get greater . Because it makes sense to me. I really like the exhaustion from hitting 0 HP. I also like the heal potions as a bonus action. Crits will just do double damage like old days. Roll all damage dice add it up, times it by two, bam.
As long as the DM and the players discuss the ground rules in advance and agree to them, then that's all that really matters. Personally, I would be fine playing in a game with those rules.
And frankly, the biggest drawback D&D has, imho, is that death (or dropping to 0 hp) is nothing more than a brief and minor inconvenience. So I like the idea of conferring a level of exhaustion on a character who comes back from death's door. I also like the homebrew resurrection rules that Critical Role uses, wherein bringing someone back from death requires an elaborate ritual and a dice roll that might still fail.
As far as the 9th level spell concern - you could just categorically state that Wish is not an option. Just strike it from the spell lists. But there are rumors of an ancient artifact that presumably had the power to grant its owner a Wish, but that might just be an old wives tale. If the player really wants to cast Wish, they'll first have to undertake an arduous trek to find that artifact.
In fact, I have considered going one step further in future campaigns regarding 9th level spells in general. So... 9th level spells are The Most powerful forms of magic available. We're talking about a level of power far beyond what any mortal being could normally be expected to withstand. Our bodies simply aren't equipped to serve as conduits for such massive power. So.... perhaps.... whenever anyone casts any 9th level spell, they must also roll a d20. On a roll of 1, they have to make a Con save, DC 19. If they fail the Con save, something horrible happens to them. Basically, they've blown a fuse. Maybe they take a large amount of psychic damage, maybe they gain a permanent insanity, maybe all their remaining spell slots get used up, maybe they open a rift to a random plane. Either way, the spell still works as written, but there's a very small chance of blowing a fuse. So they're free to cast their spells, but there'll always be a bit of hesitation to throw around such power willy-nilly.
Anything to instill a bit of fear and unpredictability into their lives, to help them keep perspective.
Tayn of Darkwood. Lvl 10 human Life Cleric of Lathander. Retired.
Ikram Sahir ibn Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad, Second Son of the House of Ra'ad, Defender of the Burning Sands. Lvl 9 Brass Dragonborn Sorcerer + Greater Fire Elemental Devil.
Viktor Gavriil. Lvl 20 White Dragonborn Grave Cleric, of Kurgan the God of Death.
Anzio Faro. Lvl 5 Prot. Aasimar Light Cleric.
Lots of good House Rule ideas here. I like the level 9 spell rules as an idea, though I might not use it just as written above.
I feel like I played in a campaign once where 9th level spells were not things you could just learn. You essentially had to complete a quest or somehow otherwise do something amazing to acquire one, but I don’t remember the details anymore. It’s been decades....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It may have been AD&D... I don’t recall and I am rather sure this was known as a fact of our campaign (whether a house rule or game rule) in the background but that we never got anywhere near the ability to cast 9th level spells. Most of the time our parties would cap out around level 6 and then we would get tired of D&D and switch to Star Frontiers or Champions or something.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Looking to make the nat 20 a crit roll. I like the idea from the old rules. I am thinking of either max weapon damage add modifiers, Or double damage. I think double damage could be pretty devastating to an NPC. Thoughts? Thanks
In combat, a natural 20 is already a critical hit, and lets you roll all damage dice twice. (This is equivalent on average to max weapon damage add modifiers, a bit less than double damage because the modifiers don't get doubled.) See https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#CriticalHits .
On the Nat20 front, I think that nothing quite sucks like rolling a Nat20 and then rolling two 1s on the damage roll :p
So, my house rule on Nat20s is you get the doubled damage dice, but the extra dice ( and only the extra dice ) are counted as if they rolled max damage.
So - if you had an attack which did 1d8+4 damage, and you hit with a Nat20, your damage is 1d8+4+8, with the last 8 being the maxed out second die. Rolling 2d6+3 would be 2d6+3+12 on a Nat20.
This means that a Nat20 will always do more than the maximum damage of a regular damage roll, but still allows for some variation and extra luck.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have heard this suggested before. Or maybe something similar. I will totally be adding it to my own rules.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Yeah, AD&D was a different animal. One thing I think modern designers forget about is that wizards used to be balanced by the experience required for each level. The magic user (as it was known back in the day) was one of the most expensive classes to level past level 10. So much so that a player of a fighter might be several levels ahead of a higher level wizard. And rogues would be well beyond the fighter in level!
Since I have not seen a 9th level spell cast other than wish I think I will wait before I put brakes on any other spell. I don't even think Time Stop is the monster it used to be.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
My ONLY grip with this is the evil character thing because evil is such a poorly respresented alignment. Evil in a lot of cases simply just means selfish. Like how not all good people will simply risk there lifes for the world not all evil peopel will just murderer anyone because...they find it a wacky sort of fun
Like a lawful evil person might be a completely upstanding citizen who adventurers with heroes to gain poltical goody points so that they are seen in a better light and able to get away with more while still appearing good.
A neutral evil person might do things for there own self interest and see joining the party as a way to gain riches and stuff while also having no qualms or compassion for using underhanded means the the more good aligned party members might not resort to
and chaotic evil might be completely driven by there hatred for an enemy they share with the party but have absolutely no problem anilating anything that gets in there way with no second thoughts what so ever or be after a huge amount of wealth and not be afraid to anything to get it but realize that betraying the party probably won't turn out good
my overall point is to not say that evil alignments are ban but banning manically evil people who have good reason to work outright against the party. It might be harder to work a truely evil character into the campaign but a lesser evil can easily fit in. Like the fighter who lost his family and has no qualms or comassion about getting his revenge who might eventually become good as he starts to warm up to the party. The skilled noble who uses this as a politcal manuver to gain favor in the kingdom. Or just a general bad person who wants to get rich quick. Evil characters might have a bit of a harder time fitting in and it should be talked about more in session zero so everyone is on the same page and you're free to not allow certain things but looking over evil might be work a second
Marvarax and Sora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
The PHB gives us some guidelines on evil alignments. This is what I start with when thinking about alignments.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and goblins are neutral evil.
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.
While I certainly agree that being overly selfish or self centered is a character flaw I would not agree that is evil in and of itself. Evil characters are selfish PLUS. They want to impose their will on others, cannot feel successful unless others suffer and/or are happy to subject others to cruelty and suffering. Basically they are the bad guys in any story worth paying attention to. I will agree that it might be fun to play Thanos in a game and I am sure a group might have fun playing a party of such characters but, more importantly, I would not have fun DMing that game. My rule is not designed to castigate evil players but rather make sure the DM has as much fun as everyone else.
Would I play in a evil campaign? Sure, I would play even though I prefer good alignments. Have I run evil campaigns? Yep, and my experience is they never work out and usually devolve into player versus player conflicts that foster bad feelings outside of the game. Would I run a evil campaign again? Nope, been there and done that and it is not for me. I like to play the hero and I like telling the story about the hero (or heroine). Does this mean that other peoples fun is bad? Nope, just not for me much like skateboarding.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats