So I had a couple of house rules I am thinking about applying to my next campaign and I wanted to see how much of a good/bad idea they were, I would appreciate some feedback.
1) Everyone starts trained in perception. If your class/background/race would give you training in perception, you become trained in investigation or insight instead, player's choice Reasoning: Perception is such a common skill and really that is called for ALL the time, and really, it shouldn't take any special training to be listening or on the lookout for stuff.
2) You can become trained in a vehicle/kit/tool/instrument/etc. by finding someone to teach you and spending some downtime working on it and practicing it. If you have to hire a tutor it may take some money, but it does not take any other resources. The time depends on how much time you devote to it and how 'big' or difficult it is to learn. Learning Vehicle-sailing ship may take 3 months or more, where as Herbalism Kit may take a few weeks. Because this devalues vehicles/kits/tools, any BACKGROUND that gives you training in a vehicle/tool/kit grants you two of the type instead of one (so a background that grants you normally proficiency in one of several instruments now grants you proficiency in two.) Reasoning: I feel that kits/vehicles/tools/etc are tremendously devalued compared to languages or skills, and I want players to be able to learn new 'off skills' like metalworking as they level up without having to throw a feat at it.
I mean there's nothing really wrong with this as a house rule, but I wonder if it's trying to solve the wrong problem? If you ask for Perception checks more than any other, then it may mean you're not giving players enough opportunity to use other skills. For example, Investigation makes more sense for searching a room, Insight is more appropriate to a social situation, so are you not putting these in your player's path often enough?
I would also encourage your players to suggest checks more often; for example, if I were searching a wizard's study and I have a better Arcana score than Investigation, then I would suggest that as an option to use. If a Druid is keeping watch they might prefer to roll Nature or Survival to sense that something is amiss and so-on.
You can become trained in a vehicle/kit/tool/instrument/etc. by finding someone to teach you and spending some downtime working on it and practicing it.
There are actually rules on Training in the Downtime Activities section, they're a bit vague but the rule of thumb is 250 days at 1gp per day. This will depend a lot on how much downtime your campaign allows though; I find a lot of campaigns don't allow much at all, but that may be something you could change.
For example, if your players get their quests from factions, there may simply be a period in which there isn't any new work on offer, so you can start a session by skipping two weeks forward and asking players what they spent their time doing. In this case a player could tick off 14gp against something they're training in. Do this regularly enough and it's another form of progression alongside levelling up.
It's harder to do in campaigns where players are immediately tasked with stopping some world-ending threat where time is of the essence, but not every campaign needs to feature those, or you can have breaks, e.g- you've defeated the cultists trying to summon [Tooltip Not Found] to the prime material plane, and spend a while on something more mundane as the players build up their holdings in a city, work through political intrigues, mysterious missing persons cases etc. until it turns out the cultists were merely a small part of a larger organisation…
Alternatively you can allow players to pay more to train faster, e.g- 5gp a day for 50 days learning from the best teacher money can buy, or some kind of magically assisted learning etc.
This is another area where you might want to think about emphasising tool use more as well; far too often people forget to make use of them, and it's another area where players should be encouraged to suggest using them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean there's nothing really wrong with this as a house rule, but I wonder if it's trying to solve the wrong problem? If you ask for Perception checks more than any other, then it may mean you're not giving players enough opportunity to use other skills. For example, Investigation makes more sense for searching a room, Insight is more appropriate to a social situation, so are you not putting these in your player's path often enough?
I would also encourage your players to suggest checks more often; for example, if I were searching a wizard's study and I have a better Arcana score than Investigation, then I would suggest that as an option to use. If a Druid is keeping watch they might prefer to roll Nature or Survival to sense that something is amiss and so-on.
This is actually a modification from Pathfinder 2e that I really like. It's just that perception is so ubiquitous. Finding a trap? Perception. Casually seeing through a disguise? Perception. Finding that hidden door? Perception. Noticing that secret hoard hidden behind a hidden floorboard? Perception. This is really so that at higher levels when the DCs get to 20 and above, that everyone has a chance to participate in the game.
And yes, other skills are useful, don't get me wrong, but as it was explained to me in this video, Investigation is for finding out WHAT is going on, Perception is for noticing that something is going on in the first place. For players to actually catch on to a clue, they first need to notice it with perception before they can investigate it, or nature/arcana/history/underwater basket weaving it.
And yes, other skills are useful, don't get me wrong, but as it was explained to me in this video, Investigation is for finding out WHAT is going on, Perception is for noticing that something is going on in the first place. For players to actually catch on to a clue, they first need to notice it with perception before they can investigate it, or nature/arcana/history/underwater basket weaving it.
That's an interpretation of how to apply them but since we're talking house-ruling anyway, there is no reason to be too strict; that said even with a strict interpretation there is wiggle room:
For example, for spotting traps, just because you see something doesn't mean you know what it is; seeing a patch of leaves that seems a little too neat, or a sapling that seems unusually curved, doesn't mean that you'll recognise a snare trap when you see one, which is why Survival may be an equally reasonable skill for a player to request instead because you don't necessarily need to spot a trap if you know where the best places to put one would be (i.e- as long as the conditions aren't too dark or such, experience applies equally well).
A lot of examples given for Investigation actually overlap with other possible skills as well; like knowing what kind of weapon created a wound (Medicine), poring through scrolls (Arcana if they refer to something magical, History if they refer to past events, Insight for a person's behaviour), and so-on.
These are all examples that are pretty well supported in the rules as they are IMO.
But for house-ruling I'm very much of fan of games like Blades in the Dark where the DM doesn't tell you what to roll, the player proposes what they want to roll and then justifies it (though the DM still has to agree), and this is how I prefer to run D&D. In other words, don't ask for a check, just tell the player that they need to make a check, and let them suggest what they're going to roll and why, and what they hope to get from it. This opens up the skills and tools so much more, and lets players contribute to the same problems using their own different character skills, plus it means that all you as DM have to do is set a difficulty, and maybe alter an outcome based on what they're trying to learn (e.g- Insight on some letters might not reveal a crucial clue, but it might give you some insight as to who wrote the letters that may still help). You can also let them argue the ability score, though again DM gets final say; for example if they'd prefer to roll a Wisdom (Mason's Tools) check for structural weaknesses, then that could be reasonable (especially for a character with a background/backstory in masonry).
This is my personal preference so take it however you want, but it would be my preferred solution to the problem you're describing, because giving everyone perception won't necessarily solve the issue if you find some checks are being overused, and others are rarely used. You may find yourself tempted to then do the same for Investigation, then maybe Survival and so-on.
One other thing I'd add though, is that Perception checks should only be getting harder later in the game when facing higher standards of traps/Stealth; otherwise a basic snare trap set by a kobold should have the same DC to spot at level 1 and level 20, eavesdropping through a door shouldn't really change and so-on. I like to still encounter basic enemies at higher levels so you get a real sense of progression, as checks you used to fail become almost automatic, or you have new ways to tackle them, and the enemies that gave you trouble are now easy (though maybe something more threatening keeps it challenging). For example, a level 1-3 party might face a kobold group in some caves, and find them and their traps challenging. Later on they may encounter survivors, or another group, but these serve an adult red dragon who is annoyed you've slaughtered their minions.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
1) Everyone starts trained in perception. If your class/background/race would give you training in perception, you become trained in investigation or insight instead, player's choice Reasoning: Perception is such a common skill and really that is called for ALL the time, and really, it shouldn't take any special training to be listening or on the lookout for stuff.
I think a better approach for this is to simply lower your Perception DCs and provide auto-successes based on Passive Perception. If Perception checks are outstripping all other checks in your game by a significant margin, you should probably look at ways to call for them less often. Players shouldn't need to roll to search a room when there is no danger and no time limit.
The difference in this approach is that you still have the ability to raise the DC for certain things if you want to reward a player who expended resources to be good at Perception. In general, it's good to reward players for their choices.
So I had a couple of house rules I am thinking about applying to my next campaign and I wanted to see how much of a good/bad idea they were, I would appreciate some feedback.
1) Everyone starts trained in perception. If your class/background/race would give you training in perception, you become trained in investigation or insight instead, player's choice
Reasoning: Perception is such a common skill and really that is called for ALL the time, and really, it shouldn't take any special training to be listening or on the lookout for stuff.
2) You can become trained in a vehicle/kit/tool/instrument/etc. by finding someone to teach you and spending some downtime working on it and practicing it. If you have to hire a tutor it may take some money, but it does not take any other resources. The time depends on how much time you devote to it and how 'big' or difficult it is to learn. Learning Vehicle-sailing ship may take 3 months or more, where as Herbalism Kit may take a few weeks. Because this devalues vehicles/kits/tools, any BACKGROUND that gives you training in a vehicle/tool/kit grants you two of the type instead of one (so a background that grants you normally proficiency in one of several instruments now grants you proficiency in two.)
Reasoning: I feel that kits/vehicles/tools/etc are tremendously devalued compared to languages or skills, and I want players to be able to learn new 'off skills' like metalworking as they level up without having to throw a feat at it.
I mean there's nothing really wrong with this as a house rule, but I wonder if it's trying to solve the wrong problem? If you ask for Perception checks more than any other, then it may mean you're not giving players enough opportunity to use other skills. For example, Investigation makes more sense for searching a room, Insight is more appropriate to a social situation, so are you not putting these in your player's path often enough?
I would also encourage your players to suggest checks more often; for example, if I were searching a wizard's study and I have a better Arcana score than Investigation, then I would suggest that as an option to use. If a Druid is keeping watch they might prefer to roll Nature or Survival to sense that something is amiss and so-on.
There are actually rules on Training in the Downtime Activities section, they're a bit vague but the rule of thumb is 250 days at 1gp per day. This will depend a lot on how much downtime your campaign allows though; I find a lot of campaigns don't allow much at all, but that may be something you could change.
For example, if your players get their quests from factions, there may simply be a period in which there isn't any new work on offer, so you can start a session by skipping two weeks forward and asking players what they spent their time doing. In this case a player could tick off 14gp against something they're training in. Do this regularly enough and it's another form of progression alongside levelling up.
It's harder to do in campaigns where players are immediately tasked with stopping some world-ending threat where time is of the essence, but not every campaign needs to feature those, or you can have breaks, e.g- you've defeated the cultists trying to summon [Tooltip Not Found] to the prime material plane, and spend a while on something more mundane as the players build up their holdings in a city, work through political intrigues, mysterious missing persons cases etc. until it turns out the cultists were merely a small part of a larger organisation…
Alternatively you can allow players to pay more to train faster, e.g- 5gp a day for 50 days learning from the best teacher money can buy, or some kind of magically assisted learning etc.
This is another area where you might want to think about emphasising tool use more as well; far too often people forget to make use of them, and it's another area where players should be encouraged to suggest using them.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is actually a modification from Pathfinder 2e that I really like. It's just that perception is so ubiquitous. Finding a trap? Perception. Casually seeing through a disguise? Perception. Finding that hidden door? Perception. Noticing that secret hoard hidden behind a hidden floorboard? Perception. This is really so that at higher levels when the DCs get to 20 and above, that everyone has a chance to participate in the game.
And yes, other skills are useful, don't get me wrong, but as it was explained to me in this video, Investigation is for finding out WHAT is going on, Perception is for noticing that something is going on in the first place. For players to actually catch on to a clue, they first need to notice it with perception before they can investigate it, or nature/arcana/history/underwater basket weaving it.
That's an interpretation of how to apply them but since we're talking house-ruling anyway, there is no reason to be too strict; that said even with a strict interpretation there is wiggle room:
For example, for spotting traps, just because you see something doesn't mean you know what it is; seeing a patch of leaves that seems a little too neat, or a sapling that seems unusually curved, doesn't mean that you'll recognise a snare trap when you see one, which is why Survival may be an equally reasonable skill for a player to request instead because you don't necessarily need to spot a trap if you know where the best places to put one would be (i.e- as long as the conditions aren't too dark or such, experience applies equally well).
A lot of examples given for Investigation actually overlap with other possible skills as well; like knowing what kind of weapon created a wound (Medicine), poring through scrolls (Arcana if they refer to something magical, History if they refer to past events, Insight for a person's behaviour), and so-on.
These are all examples that are pretty well supported in the rules as they are IMO.
But for house-ruling I'm very much of fan of games like Blades in the Dark where the DM doesn't tell you what to roll, the player proposes what they want to roll and then justifies it (though the DM still has to agree), and this is how I prefer to run D&D. In other words, don't ask for a check, just tell the player that they need to make a check, and let them suggest what they're going to roll and why, and what they hope to get from it. This opens up the skills and tools so much more, and lets players contribute to the same problems using their own different character skills, plus it means that all you as DM have to do is set a difficulty, and maybe alter an outcome based on what they're trying to learn (e.g- Insight on some letters might not reveal a crucial clue, but it might give you some insight as to who wrote the letters that may still help). You can also let them argue the ability score, though again DM gets final say; for example if they'd prefer to roll a Wisdom (Mason's Tools) check for structural weaknesses, then that could be reasonable (especially for a character with a background/backstory in masonry).
This is my personal preference so take it however you want, but it would be my preferred solution to the problem you're describing, because giving everyone perception won't necessarily solve the issue if you find some checks are being overused, and others are rarely used. You may find yourself tempted to then do the same for Investigation, then maybe Survival and so-on.
One other thing I'd add though, is that Perception checks should only be getting harder later in the game when facing higher standards of traps/Stealth; otherwise a basic snare trap set by a kobold should have the same DC to spot at level 1 and level 20, eavesdropping through a door shouldn't really change and so-on. I like to still encounter basic enemies at higher levels so you get a real sense of progression, as checks you used to fail become almost automatic, or you have new ways to tackle them, and the enemies that gave you trouble are now easy (though maybe something more threatening keeps it challenging). For example, a level 1-3 party might face a kobold group in some caves, and find them and their traps challenging. Later on they may encounter survivors, or another group, but these serve an adult red dragon who is annoyed you've slaughtered their minions.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think a better approach for this is to simply lower your Perception DCs and provide auto-successes based on Passive Perception. If Perception checks are outstripping all other checks in your game by a significant margin, you should probably look at ways to call for them less often. Players shouldn't need to roll to search a room when there is no danger and no time limit.
The difference in this approach is that you still have the ability to raise the DC for certain things if you want to reward a player who expended resources to be good at Perception. In general, it's good to reward players for their choices.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm