My bud uses a rule for healing potions I really like, where if they're consumed as a bonus action they have to roll for HP recovery, but if they take one as an action they get max HP.
@@larryvickers2480 You can only twin a spell that targets only one creature. Since magic missile can target multiple creatures, it can't be twinned. Same goes for spells with an AoE or spells with a range of self.
My favorite House Rule Stealth - Stealth checks are not made at the moment when a character decides to be sneaky, instead it is made at any moment when they could reasonably be discovered. This solves so many issues with stealth. It prevents players from being overly brazen when they know they rolled well on their stealth (or the opposite), and it allows for a lot of situational modifiers to be made to the roll because you know the exact circumstances at the moment when they could be noticed, rather than have it just be some catch-all roll. I find that it breaks my players out of the mindset that a high stealth roll means they're basically invisible until they decide not to be.
Personally, I feel this is how it should be. A stealth roll isn't needed when a player is trying to be stealthy if there's nothing around to detect them. Think of it like this: Player: "I'm going to sneak through the woods." (Rolls a successful stealth check.) DM (knowing there's nothing around for miles): "Okay. The forest doesn't know you're there!"
@@DungeonDudes The main problem with Stealth in 5e - from my perspective as a new player - is that it's extremely unclear how useful the "Hide" action is supposed to be in combat. The rules describe that it's supposed to be somewhat "realistic" and that simply hiding behind your half orc ally without moving will not give your halfling the "unseen attacker" advantage on the next attack roll - but other than those blatant cases, it seems to be completely up to DM discretion. While DM discretion can be fine, I could see this leading to lots of finicky situations at the table and potential fights over "how obscured" a character is when hiding or "how distracted" that adult dragon is by the barbarian hacking its ankles. It just seems not worth it, despite seemingly being a core feature of the Rogue.
@@Nr4747 There are loads of arguments all around the internet about this very subject. I am not even going to try and go into it here, but opinions vary wildly, and it's really something you should discuss with your group before playing a rogue. At my table, if a rogue makes a reasonable attempt at making their next attack come from a surprising place after hiding, I'll give them advantage. If they are just going to try and duck behind the same pillar/corner over and over, it's not going to fool anything that has enough intelligence to understand object permanence. But there are groups out there that do allow that, and that's OK, too. We are here because of a video about house rules, after all.
It should be done this way. Every person who has ever tried to sneak around always THOUGHT they succeeded. They never KNEW however until they got caught or didnt
My favorite Homebrew: grazes - when attack roll or check is shy by 1 point ( the character rolls a 16 when they need a 17 to succeed) they succeed at a penalty. In combat, they would hit, but do half damage. When picking a lock, they would succeed, but trigger an unseen trap. When being stealthy, they would remain unseen, but the guard knows someone is there and begins searching, etc.
I do a variant of this where every check has different bands of DC, where the highest return the best results, while lower bands become more mixed. An example with a History check to find out the name of a town where an event took place would be 1-5, no idea; 6-10, cryptic information like "ends with -shire or something"; 11+ I give out the name of the town they're looking for. I imagine this is very common, and it works very well. My players know this is what is happening behind the scenes too, so they feel it is less arbitrary.
Mathieu Robitaille tbh when I heard the bloodied condition I immediately remembered the sheer amount of times our party has in-fighting, and how my paper-thin half orc Druid would be ‘bloodied’ so often lol (he’s got like... 20 hp... rolling for hp sucks)
@@thatoneVoidDemon since we're on house rules, there's the average hp set in the PHB and a rule I have in my game if they don't like rolling is every level they can choose the average (on a d10 I think it's 6+CON) but if they roll they MUST take the roll. I find it helps balance it out a bunch as some like the gamble and others want to avoid it.
Skewrz my old Dm used a bit of a home brew version where if you roll under the average you get the average which makes it slightly fairer but lessens the rng of having lower health or something idk
@@cosmit4250 I used to do that in 3.x. I gave my players a choice of (assuming d8s) take 5 or roll, but if you get less than 4, you get 4. Change as appropriate for the hit dice.
Yo can we get a video fleshing out the minion rule specifically? This seems like the single most useful rule for scaling up encounters and really raising the stakes but I don’t know that I fully understand it
@@krisratliff3157 Simple enough: You have a bunch of really cool monsters that aren't the big bad. They are thematically cool and level appropriate, but fighting them is a chore. See bandits, goblins, kobolds, etc. Minions keep all those cool elements, but get 2 really important changes. Change 1: minions only have 1hp so any successful attack defeats them. Change 2: Minions never die to a failed attack or if they make a successful save, even if it would typically do damage. They keep all their other typical stats (AC, special abilities, modifiers etc). In a 1v1, you might elevate a minion to is normal stats to ensure that a fight has stakes (such as giving full health to a fleeing guard shouting for help so he isn't automatically deleted by the rogue).
I hate people being forced into conventional parties, so my house rule is that with a potion you can either use a full action and gain 10hp, or a bonus action and roll. You're either forgoing an attack to carefully drink it, or you're spilling it everywhere.
@@tbohn10 rolled a nat 1: in your rush you accidentally mistook your poison bottles for healing potions - lucky you mostly missed your mouth! take one point of additional damage haha
The House Rule: Declare you are using a "Social" Skill/Check, Roll, Determine result....Role Play the Result Making your slick pick up line then rolling a fail seems kinda lame...rolling a fail and being forced to RP a lame pick up line, that's fun!
this is good only for experienced players as they could predict where the conversations would go, and most of the time able to deliver a good arguments when it comes to deception or persuation events. this could make the interactions more interesting. but for new players, what if they got a high roll for deception, and later giving a bad or even a contradictive arguments to npc
@@hayaku95 I think the rp should be optional under that system, if the player can come up with something really good (or laughably bad) then they have the option to entertain the group with it.
I would say as the GM if the pickup line or whatever the rp roll is for is really good I give advantage. And dis if its terrible. Certainly helps avoid that scenario
Lvl 12 Human Druid takes the prodigy feat, expertise in medicine, maxed wisdom, drinks potion, gains 2d4 +16 hit points But at the same time, I like it
Could always just house rule call them healing kits or something similar instead of health potions if you're worried about them breaking immersion. Magical salves that knowing how to apply them makes it more effective than rubbing it everywhere.
@@elonwhatever Yeah this whole video could basically just be reduced to like, the screengrabs they have of the rules in text. And if they wanted a video it could've just been 10 minutes of them explaining each one briefly... Not really enjoying these guys because of the long-winded overly obvious explinations, and often just bad takes in general on things lmao.
Just unassuming get your players onboard with the flanking rules, like it's not the end of the world. Then suddenly, out of the corner of their eyes... The Kobold Gang
The advantage on attack rolls statistically is the same as having a +5 to a single roll. So I would stick to advantage when the flanking creatures are more than two, and add a +2 when they are exactly two.
@@pierluigidipietro8097 actually it's 3.325. average roll is 10.5 while average roll with advantage is 13.825. And the reason I would prefer a flat bonus over advantage is because it doesn't makes all the other sources of advantage meaningless since you can just flank.
The reason why Flanking wasn't in the Core Rulebook is because D&D 5e can be played complete in Theater of the Mind. Some DMs, especially new ones, don't have minis to illustrate the battlefield, so it can be difficult to apply that level of tactical complexity to a battlefield situation where not everyone is seeing the same thing in their mind. This isn't a bad thing, just kinder and less demanding to new players and DMs joining the growing D&D community.
Our game yesterday implemented the potion and crit rules. They freaking loved it, and I loved how much they loved it. Really took combat to an elevated level, even with a PC dying.
I actually use a variation on the minion rule in 5e: Instead of explicitly 1 hp, I actually give them effectively 1/10 their normal HP value (which, in the grand scheme of high-tier play, is virtually the same given the general damage output of characters, but is more there for the sake of spells like color spray or sleep where HP amount matters), strip them of multiattack while also minimizing their damage (since I already use average damage for regular monsters as is), and have them always act on Initiative Count 10. In any case though, the critical hit and potion houserules I am definitely taking~
i call those minions cannonfodder or one hit wonders, down with one hit. i start with double the number of party members and if the party killed 3/4 of those one-hit wonders, i keep adding a number equal to the number of party members till the big bruisers are down or are now coz of the partys constitution a challenge on their own without their cannonfodder ;)
@@imperiousartifact1473 since they add to the fight i think they should have some but since they are just one hit wonders the value shouldn´t be too high max 50 xp per minion. i don´t worry about xp since i GM with milestones
About the potion as a bonus action, my DM had a rule that I live concerning potions. You can hold ONE on your belt to be used as a bonus action. All others cost an action. Feels really great to me.
To streamline combat I: 1) Run real life military small unit tactics of ambushs. 2) If a minion takes more than a 1/3 of damage- he will attempt to bolt. 3) If the minions lose more than 20-25% of their numbers they will retreat and attempt an attack later or fully flee. 4) I only roll for successful attacks, and apply a uniform average damage to the PCs, I modify this depending on the scenario and believability. 5)Always break up combat with a complication ex. 2 rounds into combat, one of the npcs takes a hostage, or a fire breaks out and starts spreading, or the bbeg attempts a parlay or starts his evil plan. 6)Diversify your npcs- this forces your group to deal with a goliath, two archers and a cleric. It can really bring out the tactical side of your players. 7) Finally don't be afraid to kill your PCs, but remember your goal is to tell a story, not fight the PCs. Ex. After PC bob takes crit damage, NPCs threaten to finish him unless the group surrunders. Continue the story with them being carted off or being brought before a boss npc, instead of just methodically killing them until they get the bright idea to cut their losses and run.
I run a pretty high magic setting. And it seems to be really easy for my full casters to just load up on spells that are pure damage, so they ignore a lot of low end buff/utility spells. So I house ruled that cantrips can be casted as bonus actions so long as they don't cause damage or conditions to enemies. Suddenly my players started taking True Strike to help out martial players and other spells that lean more towards flavor rather than power. It might not work at every table, but it makes my casters less glass cannon and more magical swiss army knife.
My favorite house rule about health potions combines the two you mentioned in an interesting way. Drinking the health potion takes only a bonus action but you roll the healing. However if you decide to take the time to pour the health potion over whatever wounds you have accumulated it takes your entire action but maximizes the potion's effect.
By this same method your DM can choose to make any type of potion either topical (1 action) or ingested (Bonus Action) depending on how they want them to be used.
House Rule: Daggers count as ranged weapons/attacks when thrown. If the character throwing the dagger is proficient with daggers (or all Simple Weapons), drawing the dagger counts as part of the attack (akin to drawing an arrow to fire a bow). < This house rule opens up dagger throwing to a number of interesting feats and other options.
That's already how the Thrown property works. "If a weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack" (PHB 147). RAW, throwing a dagger, javelin, spear, etc all count for features like sharpshooter, for example.
Another idea is that, if the disguise is physical in nature, the players gain a bonus to deception checks with that faction (basically being able to use the "We've got wounded here, get out of the way" tactic)
Two that I personally like: 1) When using the Careful Spell metamagic, instead of giving advantage to your allies on the saving throw, the spell warps around them, protecting them from it's effects. Makes better use of those sorcery points. 2) Barbarian Rage ends when the Barbarian doesn't attack or take damage? How about Rage ending if the Barbarian takes a non-aggressive action, such as running away, using a potion or hiding? If the Barbarian is raging and can see it's target, but can't get to it in one turn, why would they suddenly calm down? Wouldn't they continue to chase down the target as angrily as possible? So, if the Barbarian is actively trying to attack a target, whether it gets the hit or not, it should continue to rage. If it stops trying to attack for any reason, then the rage ends.
@@josephdellavecchia7828 I don't see the point of a barbarian hurting themselves to keep the rage going... mechanical, sure, but from a narrative standpoint, if the barbarian is charging at their enemy head-on and they just can't reach them in one round of combat, why would they suddenly be less angry? The way I see it, they should continue to be angry and laser-focused on that target. If they do anything that requires more thought than "CHARGE! KILL! GRAAAH!", then sure, the rage can end. Down a potion, rage ends. Hide, disengage to run away, rage ends. But if you're running full-tilt at something you want to kill? Rage should keep going even if you can't make it. It just makes sense logically.
I don't understand your suggestion for the Careful Spell metamagic. " A chosen creature automatically succeeds on its saving throw against the spell." It already does, by RAW, exactly what you want it to do.
Elliott Petersen Succeeding on a saving throw doesn't necessarily eliminate a spell's effects. Especially at high levels, 'half-damage on a successful save' is extremely common.
With crits, I usually ask my players "what makes this attack a critical hit?" and have them describe whatever flashy move they do, then give the enemy penalties or the player characters bonuses depending on what is described. Doing things this way gives crits a satisfying quality to them rather than just "you do a lot of damage" and helps negate the issue of a crit that doesn't do a lot of damage.
"When you roll a critical hit, you may choose one die to count as the maximum it can roll" or something would solve the rogue & paladin problem if it is a problem at all.
There's just one problem with that. Normally when you crit you double all the dice damage, which means that if you have something like 10 dice it's a lot. Choosing only a die to max would make it feel quite underwhelming, unless I misunderstood something.
I think he means max one die, roll the rest as you normally woukd with a crit. So you still get double the dice, but only one is automatically maxed out.
i dont remember what system i played once but crists were just maximum damage+2 times the relevant modifier so you didnt have to roll nor add too much math a crit from a d8 weapon with a +2 strenght modifier would be 8+4=12 damage, it was enough to feel awesome without using much math nor breaking the game
The simplest critical is simply maximum damage, which is very close to the same value as rolling twice, so does not affect game balance. Works for rogues & paladins, avoids low damage criticals, and easy to calculate. To get the exact average, use maximum + 1 per die + any roll critical extras (like half orc savage attacker).
Because certain features like barbarian criticals add one extra weapon die as opposed to weapon dice, making the greataxe better then 2H Sword for critical hits. This was intentional.
The mook rule from 13th age is also a cool way to do mobs of small weak creatures too imo , the way it works is a group of mooks will share a hp total , a large token , and a stat sheet with say maybe 6 goblins or something making up your mook mob, and basically every time you take off 1/x amount of their total hp so in this example 1/6 of their hp their number of attacks per round goes from 6 to 5 and since a single mook normally has maybe a couple hp your fighter or whatever can feel like a badass when he does 12 damage with his long sword and kills like 3 goblins in a turn whereas with the 1 hp minion rule he can only kill as many as he has attacks per round
Fighters do 4 attacks at 20, 5 with feats/special weapons/certain features. So they can dispatch a group pretty fast. Using both rules might be an interesting idea.
Reminds me of rules for swarms in some systems.You know, rats, snakes, snotlings what-have-you. Could be a great way of dealing with groups of "trash mobs"
personally i really like the better crit rule. we fought an ogre recently and it rolled max damage on one crit, instakilling one pc almost and then crited once more dealing less damage than some of the regular hits. of course i liked not beeing the next one to get smashed but it didnt really feel like a crit.
@JoeRingo118 Barbarians do crazy damage, and even if they didn't they still take half damage from most attacks combined with a gigantic health pool and advantage on dexterity saving throws. The last thing they need is more damage.
I really like the house rule for flanking we play with. If you flank you get 1.5 Proficiency Bonus to your melee attack. So basicly from lvl 1-8 you get +1, from 9-16 you get +2 and from 17-20 you get +3. The idea is that the more skilled you are the better you are at taking advantage of the flanking. :)
Creature idea: a creature that rewards taking short rests and having well-timed heals/punishes over extending a character *Bloodthirst:* This creature gains advantage against bloodied targets, this creature has blindsight of x ft. But can only detect bloodied targets The wording is confusing because i'm still kind of new to all of this but idk, sounds cool thematically and mechanic wise
Critical Damage House Rule: A) Max DMG + 1dx + mods AND/OR B) If crit dmg is lowest possible, DM applies some other debilitating effect to victim as if it was a “hidden” injury or effect. For ex: bleeding 1dx/round, slowed (ie, as if hamstrung), AC -1 (due to damaged armor or shield, as if a leather strap was cut so not as effective), or Dmg die - x (ie, they can’t hit as hard since a critical muscle/tendon damaged), etc
My group is made up of DMs. We all tweak our games. Flanking is something we’ve been doing for 30 years. I like the minions and bloodied rules. We all tend to be descriptive and have done something similar to the bloodied rule. I like the activation of special abilities with it. Makes sense. Good video!
Bloodied was an old 4e rule I really missed. I completely agree that it's a great descriptive tool as a dungeon master and it's one I naturally brought over when I transitioned my players to 5e. Great video guys. Minions not making it back into 5e also surprised me.
shouldn't... it was largely criticised because of how stupid it made monsters look. it may have made the game easier on DMs who preffer a more cinematic style of game play. but it made strickly no sense strategically for the players who wanted real battle. exemple... that ogre you fought when you were level 4 was no slouch... now because someone is his boss, he suddently lost all will to fight and lost all his endurance by suddently becoming a 1 hit point slime bag ? that creature evolved too, it didn't stay that way you know. plus your leveling up already compensated for the damage dealing, making him easier to kill. there is no need to make him even weaker by removing the only thing that made him formidable to begin with. it makes no sense for any world to have monions... removing a few HP off a creature because keeping a monster at 3 hp is useless, is a thing you can easily do... but removing 100 hp from a monster because he has a boss is strickly bullshit.
one of my favorite rules so far are Spell Points, found in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana page 153 i just love how much freedom that rule gives to spellcasters without completely breaking them, you still have to make a list of prepared spells but you can spend your "MP" however you want
One houserule my table has enjoyed for quite some time now is doing half damage on hitting ac exactly. It might be just us, but having 17 ac and getting fully hit by a 17 always felt a little weird.
It reminds me of something in Pillars of Eternity (a cRPG) that uses Grazes. So I guess you just say that hitting the AC exactly, or hitting the saving throw value exactly, means that it's a Graze, rather than just a straight hit or miss.
We use that house rule at the gaming store I play at. Personally, I actually like the idea that as long as you connect, you can do a reasonable amount of damage; however, I understand why others might disagree.
I like stealing Savage Worlds "ganging up" for 5e Flanking: Every ally in melee with the same opponent adds +1 to your attack roll. Easy maths right? Nothing game-breaking, it's as easy as it gets to remember, and it makes sense that a foe surrounded is easier to hit. As for healing potions I like the static number, but I also like bonus action healing, so a simple combination is that a Standard action = static number but the bonus action you have to roll (as you may spill a bit).
On the critical hit subject: I usually mix your approach of maximizing the hit die and add to the roll with exploding die. For example: If the aforementioned fighter crits, he deals 8 + 1d8 + STR, but he can roll another 1d8 if he rolls an 8. And he would keep rolling as long as the result was 8. On one hand it gives harder hitting weapons a lower probability of exploding, on the other in my head it represents the situation better. It is easier for a rogue to connect a dagger to someone's neck, than a barbarian doing the same while swinging a greataxe. Therefore, a dagger "explodes" easier on crits than a greataxe. They both deal a lot of damage on crits, but the dagger is marginally better on average. Nice video!
this is the open-ended philosopy used in Rolemaster. It works either way, tough, and the players have to agree and accept that a wimp monster having a 1d4 dagger could slay them if he is lucky enough
It may be better to on a crit change that to have the damage fall on a geometric distribution of maximum number on a die*X~geometric(1/maximum number on die)+final roll that doesn’t get that maximum number+ dex +strength. Similar in allowing hypothetically infinite damage from a crit (makes sense for slitting a throat), and better than just adding 8+dex at the start as it forces a weapon attacker to invest in strength if they want good critical hits (strength is something you need to pull back a bow string and so forth).
For potions, I like the house rule I've ran with: my vendors typically sell three different types of potions. All three of these can be scaled up or down to "lesser healing, greater healing, etc" standards. - Non-Combat Potions that take five uninterrupted minutes of "drinking" to take into effect, and therefore can't ever be used during initiative combat. These heal the most amount of damage for the least amount of cost. I typically have these potions heal double the hit points that a "normal" potion would heal for a PC at their respective level. If you find the term "Non-Combat Potion" to be immersion-breaking, there are dozens of other terms you can refer to it by-but I personally like the straight-to-the-point language that ensures the player never forgets which is which. - Battle Potions that are basically the same thing as any current potion. Takes 1 action to consume during initiative combat, heals whatever amount is standard to your PC's respective levels. - Bonus Potions typically heal half the amount of a Battle Potion, but can be consumed as a bonus action. Sometimes I'll make it humorous by making these like nicotine patches or some other comical way to illustrate how these could be consumed as a bonus action. But either way, these are always the most expensive type of potion a vendor will sell for obvious reasons. I like giving my players the option to play the way they want to, and this system makes sure that players who prefer bonus action potions can play that way at a price-while players that prefer being more conservative can also do so without losing out on PC efficiency.
I played AD&D with my friend's dad for a couple years - they used healing paste as the non combat potion. It took time to apply to wounds and to bind with bandages, but was cost effective and healed more than a standard potion (but not a greater healing potion, but those were rare.)
In my games, dropping to zero hp gives a level of exhaustion once you get back up (so that death saves are not affected right away). It prevents multiples healing words to be too effective and creates more tension and consequences when a player drops.
I tried this. I found it meant the players rested a lot more. Encounters per day went way down. It actually had the perverse effect of them being in better average condition because they refused to continue when only moderately beat down since going down would inflict such a large penalty. And then when it did happen -- forget it, they're gonna put up a Tiny Hut and long rest, even if that is a few hours after the LAST long rest. They'll sit there and play cards all day inside of ritually cast Tiny Huts rather than travel with exhaustion. Later I made it so that the exhaustion taken on this way is relieved after a _short_ rest, and this got rid of some of the problem, but ultimately I decided that if I was going to keep this rule, the additional exhaustion would go away in a short period of time without intervention, such as ten minutes for each such level (if you drop twice, you'll have two levels for 10 minutes, then 1 level for 10 minutes, then you're good). This increases the risk from going unconscious for the duration of (generally) one combat, without wrecking the rest of the day or even forcing a short rest where one otherwise might not be taken.
@@mal2ksc I get what you're saying, but I have 2 counter points. 1: and most importantly, the rules for long rest explicitly state that a long rest can only be taken once every 24 hours, so it can't be spammed like that. 2: it's really not that hard to counter this kind of behaviour. The hut is not exactly a stealthy thing so it's easy to detect, which means all you have to do is go "hey, the cultists know you are there so no they have a small army surrounding your done and are just standing around you waiting" or there's the old "hey, you're not the only caster with dispell magic" if you are looking at beasts, if there is feasibly a wurm or earth elemental burry the dome. "the massive apes in an attempt to break the hut are gone now, but you are now buried under 30 boulders, once the hut goes down they cave it, partly crushing you, everyone takes 4D10 damage. Also that was a lot of noise, you won't be alone for long" I run a very intense game, once they understand how the game works New Exodus is a unforgiving place. If my players abuse the system, the system pushs back, just like in real life. I make sure to communicate this right away. And if I introduced a system similar to this one I would let them help design it. Somthing like "this is what I'm proposing. I'm willing to take some ideas, but not willing to go below -1 on all D20 rolls per down" usually I'll end up somewhere around a point of Exaustion per down, but with a CON save that has a DC of 10 + 5 per failed death save.
@@morganmarks8725 The idea of "If abusing the system, the system pushes back" was literally what Mike Mearls suggested in one of his many streams when dealing with his players, so I wholeheartedly agree. Players are allowed to abuse the system, but you're God: you can do the same, as long as it doesn't turn into a Player VS Dungeon Master situation.
They weren't spamming long rests. They were burning whole days inside Tiny Huts to wait for long rests. It was a deliberate ploy (and it worked) to counter a new mechanic they did not like with a play style I did not like. I did have them face opposition if they stopped in places with any traffic at all, but they would then backtrack to the last safe place in whatever setting they were doing, and spend all day there before resting. I hadn't really set up time pressures, so I put a second group in there which was jumping their claim. They didn't care -- the other group could take everything and they'd just start in on a new dungeon, as far as they were concerned. The point is that the new mechanic annoyed the players sufficiently for them to essentially mutiny. I eventually got "fired" for not providing the play style they desired, so I would have just accelerated that even further if I had pushed on with the unpopular exhaustion mechanic.
My flanking rule gives the enemy a -2 to AC and disadvantage on DEX checks. This allows ranged and magic users a bonus to their allies taking up good positions.
Is there a functional difference between +2 to hit and -2 to enemy AC? Also, imho, ranged spellcasters/archers have an inherent advantage because of how far away they can be, and flanking as a melee buff gives melee classes an edge that they otherwise wouldn’t have. But that’s just my personal experience from my play group (who built a lot of characters for abusing gimmicks during one shots).
@@georgedenny9446 Only in description. "With the enemy flanked you find it easy to shoot into combat with your ally and score a hit." Vs. "With the enemy flanked he can't defend himself from your shot." Also keep in mind in a melee both parties are moving around, you could accidentally shoot your ally.
@@georgedenny9446 Well it could. If I understand it right. +2 to hit would give the people in melee a higher chance to hit. That's it. But with a -2 to AC (be it from having less room to move or whatever being flanked would do. Hence the DEX disadvantage) it would mean it is harder to dodge. So ranged attacks would ALSO benefit from this by attacking someone with less AC. TL;DR +2 benefits melee, -2 benefits all
I got this cool d12 with body parts labeled on each side like head, chest, left arm, right leg etc. I roll it on a crit hit and each have their own effects, Stomach causes bleed, arms lower damage, chest lowers ac, head lowers accuracy, and legs lower dex. I also give each their own narrative explination depending on what happened, like head could be a concussion or it could be a cut on the forehead that blurs their vision with blood! Its a fun way to make combat more grounded and exciting while making those crits really hit hard. I might try running it with the crit=max dmg + dmg die but flip a coin or roll a die as to which one happens.
I have the same d12 and couldn't think of any good way of using it. I thought about archer shots being rolled with this, and different damage calculations depending on the body parts hit. For example, extremities like the arms and legs have the least amount of damage. Chest and torso will have higher damage, and headshot is a critical. Your idea is pretty good so I'm using it.
was taking notes the entire time! great ideas for people like me who've only played 5e and dont know about these hidden gems from editions past Love your work!
So I got this from possibly misreading the Player's Handbook, but I've kept it in event after I heard it's not the way others play: When leveling up, player characters' max HP increases by the the maximum between the average hit-dice roll and the actual hit dice roll. So like, if your class uses a d10 hit dice, you gain 6 or 1d10 max HP, decided after the roll. It keeps the excitement of rolling a big HP increase, but also doesn't leave players deflated when they roll low.
If my math is right, that raises the average for a D10 character to 7 (6+6+6+6+6+6+7+8+9+10=70 /10=7), D8 is 5.75, D6 is 4.5, and D12 is 8.25. So that is roughly a 15% HP increase per level (not 15% total because of max HP at level 1). Not a huge jump,, but enough that you would need to take it into account. I like the idea though!
I allow the PCs to get a trainer for going up levels. It costs money (10 gp for 2nd level up to 500 gp for 10th.. which is max).. If you spend it, you get advantage on your HD roll.
The minion house rule is so brilliant! I've just recently had my players fight a two large scale battles almost back to back and I was constantly stressing over the hit points and initiative order as well. However with this, I can throw in a ton of monsters and foes and just have them die in one hit so that the main focus of the battles, the BBEG, can be the one enemy I can focus all my attention on in combat. Great video!
Absolutely. To players they are the protagonists in this movie, and it only makes sense to give them protag benefits. When my players land a crit I ask them to describe how they do it. I have another house rule: if they fumble with a 1, they are at disadvantage until their next turn. They're caught flat footed etc. It leads to the other players moving to cover and protect each other when a fumble happens.
Andrew Kelly I like that as opposed to hurting themself or their weapon breaking. What experienced sword fighter hits themself on 5% of their cuts? And what sword has a 5% chance of break on each swing? I’m not a historian so maybe there are swords and maces that terrible but I don’t know of any. It only makes sense if your weapons are garbage.
I also tried to this rule, but when I Crit with a full-grown Ramorhaz (67+6d10+7) and insta-killed my barbarian; I decided it was a little over-the-top. I switched to maximum die damage plus double modifier and an added effect for physical and magic attacks.
Started playing with a few buddies of mine again and these are just what I needed to help everyone get eased in to the game quicker. Thank so much for this and cheers to more of what you do!
A really nice House Rule I use that is really simple and it's only for role-play is: Whenever you take a critical damage you get a scar. This helps to remember the thought fights you faced and can lead to really fun interactions with players and NPCs.
My GM does something similar to this, but instead applies it to Pathfinder's mass damage. Any damage you take from mass damage leaves a scar that can't be healed without some SERIOUS healing magic. Our rogue, for example, is most likely always going to have a scar through her shoulder where she took 4x scythe damage from a flesh golem.
My favorite house rule: Roll initiative with 3d6 (instead of d20). Makes init much more valuable for high DEX characters, and init feats more valuable. You can still roll poorly and go last, but thieves and tactical fighters have an advantage, feels good, easy to implement.
Instead of "bloodied", we generally use a "green-yellow-orange-red" shorthand for how damaged an opponent is. It's definitely nice to have some meaningful feedback about whether your attacks are having an effect (without requiring the DM to describe in detail each and every wound that's inflicted).
This isn't a bad idea but I think I might leave out any distinctions between 50% and 100%. It _should_ take a while for the players to get a handle on how hard something will be to kill, and telling them "you've hit 25% damage" is more information than I want to divulge. Having more shades of "beat up" is useful though, so they don't blow big spells or buffed attacks on creatures that are ready to keel over. As for describing each hit -- I don't, unless I need to reveal things like resistance or immunity by saying "that didn't do as much damage as you would expect".
The way we are doing flanking is adding a d4 to the attack, it seems to be working pretty well, but +2 is basically taking the average of that so I do like that too.
I really like this. I feel like adding a bunch of +x to stuff in 5E kind of gets away from its design, but adding a minor die roll feels more consistent with the rest of the 5E rules. I think for many it's easier to remember which die to roll than it is to remember a numerical bonus. I'm about to DM my first campaign and don't plan to use flanking, but imma keep this d4 idea in my back pocket for later. Thanks!
I think it is also more fun to the players to get to roll and extra die, even if the average is the same, there is a chance it will be higher, but not as powerful as advantage.
@@stephencarmickle I've always done advantage on flanking, I feel like the +1d4(2) to hit would be more consistent and rewarding. Often I've seen people roll 2 off of a hit and their advantage roll only went up 1 point.
You guys might like the 'mook' rules from 13th Age that I have adopted a few times for 5E. A swarm of minion type monsters have a single HP pool based on their individual HP totals. Say, ten 7hp goblins have a pool of 70hp. For every 7hp that you peel off of that total, no matter the source, you kill a goblin. So if a character swings and connects for 10hp, one goblin is killed (since the 7hp threshold was crossed once) and the swarm has 60hp left. If another character deals another 11 points of damage so that the swarm has taken a total of 21 points of damage, then the 7hp threshold has been crossed 2 more times, and 2 goblins die! This is the case even if the attack normally only targeted one creature. Killing mooks in this manner is especially fun for the players.
new criticals will only make your damages dealing players better at what they already are good at. while the monk and fighters will still be left in the dust by adding only 2 or 3 points of damage overall to their damages. its not worth it. potions... using them as a bonus action is better. as it makes potions matters, if you give your players a choice of potion or damage dealing, they will always choose the later. making the ruling not worth the trouble. it is using their action for it that stops them from doing it from the get go. not the fact it heals little. healing is healing, every points count. not to metnion you'll make your players too much unkillable if you maximise potions. flanking is a nice one, but it makes positioning a must in the strategy game and it makes for quite stupid combat where everyone just try to flank everybody. makes positionning too strong to begin with. not to mention it completely nullfies the barbarian ability reckless attacks. what good is it if the barbarian never uses it. bloodied... no just no... if you cannot describe the hits of your players, then i believe you have a problem as a DM. if you really need to give them a cue that they have hurt the creature, then tell them their sword actually start cutting across that armor or that a satisfying crack was heard when that maul hit the monster. also, hit points are not a visual representation of how badly hurt you are... it is a representation of how heroic you can still be while being badly hurt. if you need visual representation, i suggest you take the shadowrun system of hit points where you get injuries as you get hit and only certain injuries can be healed. that system is a much better system of hit points to represent something. the DMG also has the injury table you need. just adapt the system to your need. minions makes no sense whatsoever... what if your players have fought a baby dragon before... now they are 10 levels above and their abilities can already kill the same dragon. why are you even diminishing that dragon further by removing his hit points and endurance more when leveling of the game already compensated for that one ? it just makes no sense. creatures don'T suddently get weaker because another monster is their boss.
Should have called this video "Five Rules from Fourth Edition D&D That We Liked" Note: This is not meant as a slight; I liked 4e quite a lot. About half of my main group does.
for that rule on health potions one could use all options for health potions for an action you could drink the health potion and get the full effect BUT you could use a bonus action and roll for it thus represents how much and how fast you can chug a potion before your opponent smashes it or you have to toss it in order to defend yourself
AlchemistGamer I usually make it so they roll as usual. If they get below the average, they take the average instead. This allows everyone to enjoy the thrill of a high HP dice roll without feeling fucked in the long term. It feels amazing to get the max but it’s not worth it at all if you get 1 additional HP.
That makes the average too high. Similar, but more fun: when the player rolls HP, the DM also rolls but in secret. Player can either choose their own roll, or instead take what the DM rolled without knowing what it is. Roll a 5 on a d6? Keep it. Roll a 2 on a d6? Take the DM's, and hope to Pelor that they didn't roll a 1.
My brother-in-law and I have decided on a rule that incorporates constitution bonus into dice roll. Its convoluted, but I like the effect. Basically, the minimum roll you can be stuck with is based on your hit dice and con bonus. d6 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 1) d8 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 2) d10 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 3) d12 can reroll any dice roll up to con bonus (max of 4)
Krispin Keyes I’m all for letting the dice fall, but I’m a firm believer that HP really isn’t the thing to let the die fall over. A bad roll on an ability check is funny, only getting 1 HP for levelling really fucking sucks in the long run. The player can just take the average anyway. If they’re smart they will always take the average. May as well let them roll and potentially get higher with a safety net. TL;DR The joy of getting a high roll on HP is drastically outweighed by how awful it feels to get a low one.
I had a DM that did crits by doubling the dice, adding the mod twice, the doubling the total damage. My friend got a whopping 150 points of damage off of a single crit once as a level 4 artificer (the highest damage I've done was as a level 11 paladin, in one turn off of three attacks with polearm master and smite I did 84 points and then another time in the same session I did 87 I think, and it was just a mix of crits, smites, and dumb luck). I much prefer this homebrew rule for crits.
Taking 20 did the math on the flanking bonus, and actually recommends a +1 as this is still a bigger bonus than a +2 was in 3rd and 4th editions. This is due to profidency bonus being 2-6 instead of attack bonus being 1-20 for combat classes.
I was going to mention this as well. The +1 is easy. And if you wanted to make it nasty to get surrounded you could pick up the setup in the video and do +1 per attacker that is flanking. (+2 per attacker is a HUGE bonus and scales poorly) Another option would be +1 for flanking and +2 if you were directly behind the directin the target is facing.
I stick with the +2 because of a few reasons: I'm 3.5 ex player And in reality getting flanked can really sucks in HEMA and even the most skilled fighters really suffer if flanked I've also introduced a feat which allows you to ignore some penalties from flanking and a couple of extra bonuses
My reason to stick with +2 is that IMO +1 is not worth messing with. It doesn't matter as much that it's /mathematically/ more correct. Because a big part of it is going to be the perceived benefit in combat and that is going to affect players' actions. Furthermore it coincides with the same bonus as partial cover or a shield. And lastly I feel that a +1 is kind of nitpicky and splitting hairs and part of the whole design premise of 5e was to reduce the tedium of all kinds of little bonuses because they slow down combat.
There is no more "facing" in 5e. That mechanic has been completely removed, possibly to simplify play in an online environment where setting the facing on every creature is a right pain in the nads.
When moving diagonally on a grid, we use the 10-5 rule instead of the 5-10 rule (basically your first diagonal movement costs you 10 instead of 5.) It's small but it keeps diagonal movement from ALWAYS being the best move, which it otherwise is. We split non-reach melee weapons into short and long categories, with short only able to hit/threaten up-down-sides while long can reach diagonals. Drawing a weapon is your "interact with object" on your turn, whereas dropping something is always free. If you want to quick-switch from your longbow to your shortsword, you have to drop the longbow and draw the shortsword. Picking up an object off the ground while in melee with an opponent triggers an attack of opportunity.
I started Dming my first campaign and my rule for healing potions is you still roll for health but no matter what you roll, the minimum you can roll is half that die ie a 2d4 potion so the minimum you can get is a 2 on each die. It makes those moments when you roll max health for a potion feel so much more satisfying but it doesn't feel like a wasted potion when you roll minimum health
Here’s another alternative to critical hits that puts a little more creative control in the players’ hands: give them a choice of dealing the extra damage dice OR dealing regular damage and imposing a condition on the enemy at the DMs discretion. For instance, when you score a critical hit on that ogre you can hurt him real bad with the extra damage or the attack hit so hard it knocked it prone or broke its leg to halve it’s movement. You get the gist.
Ive used the "bloodied" condition as a way to port the concept of boss "phases" to dnd. One of my players' favorite encounter was this elemental myrmidon who powered up when it got bloodied, and i described it as its form grew chaotic and lightning shot out of cracks in its armor.
A former DM would boost some of the stats on boss monsters when they became bloody because that's when they get "serious" about the threat the players pose.
I'm a brand new DM. Haven't played since 1e. Getting up to speed on 5e and dungeon mastering. Love 5e so far. Really like these house rule suggestions. Glad I discovered your channel. Thanks.
I do love the idea of a dragon getting the breath weapon back when it gets bloodied. in my head, a breath weapon is a somewhat uncomfortable process for the dragon, it's basically forced vomitting, so they won't use it unless they need to. once they've hit a bad point of hp, they realise they need to use it, as these adventurers are harder than the previous ones. depending on CR, I might even lock certain abilities behind bloodied, to really ramp up the fight as it gets more and more dangerous (ie, the dragon only uses multi attack, or doesn't use legendary actions until it's bloodied, or it has lair actions UNTIL it's bloodied, to change the dynamic of the fight)
"Bloodied" is great. Nice, immersive way of letting players know how far into a fight they are. It's also when more cowardly or demoralized enemies might start eyeing the exits--a rout.
Okay so I use the alternate crit rule, but I only allow players to maximize the core weapon damage not any added damage. This is mostly so the fighters and barbarians in my group don't end up feeling really left out, it's still a great rule, and I love how much better it makes the Champion fighter because critting more often is such a better ability when crits do way more damage.
I would do the same too, because it seems ridiculous for a Paladin to add 4th level spell slot smite to their crit and get an automatic +40 damage from the crit part of the smite.
The paladin may crit harder, but the fighter should crit more often. The damage should average out to be pretty similar and probably leaning towards the fighter.
@@VileProject Over time that's probably true, but it doesn't change the fact that my player feels like an idiot when the Pally can crit over 100 points of damage and he crits for like 20-25.
My party uses a combination of the two health potion rules. If you drink one as an action, you get the max possible health. If you drink as a bonus action, you out roll as normal. If you feed it to someone else, it's an action and you roll as normal.
One rule that I've been using when the combat involves 4 or more monsters of the same type or small groups of different monsters, is to roll one initiative for the whole monster group. Example: The heroes are fighting 4 goblins, 2 Twig Blights and 1 Bugbear. I roll one initiative for the Goblins and one for the Twig Blight group as a whole (And obviously one for the Bugbear). The only exception is if in the middle of the group of monsters I have some chieftain or important character, this one have his initiative rolled separately.
@@HiddenRealm I never said that all the heroes will necessarily go before the monsters and this can happen with rules as written. Having lots of the same monsters acting on different spots, not because of ready actions, but because of rolling makes really confusing for players and DMs to keep track. I speak by experience. Of course I'm not the owner of truth, I'm just sharing what have worked for me and the different groups I've DMed for the past 10 years. Also, this is just for weak large pack of monsters, not leutenants, bosses or special creatures.
House rule I use for crits: Roll damage as normal, no additional die for the crit, add all modifiers, and then double that. I feel that helps balance out paladin and rogue crits a little better because although the dice roll can be low, they still get their stat bonuses doubled, and it gets rid of the snake eyes roll for a whopping 5 damage.
One of my first house rules is one I call the "Zelda rule". when a player character levels up their hit points automatically go to maximum. I feel like it is very helpful early on and especially in those quick moments between battles.
I am new to your site, and I am excited to see more. I wanted to share the one house rule I have been using since the 1980's. There is a book called, Arms Law Claw Law. I believe it was used for a Middle Earth role playing game. In it is a percentile crit chart that is very descriptive, and can lead to additional roleplaying opportunities. When ever a 20 is rolled, a second d-20 is rolled. These carts are broken up into five columns, so when making the second role of 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20, gets you to a better crit. Then role the percentage dice, and get your results. This seem like a lot of rolling, but it only happens once or twice a game session, and the one minute of time turns into a very suspenseful and rememberable moment. We always dbl. the damage, and tripple the damage if a 20, 20 is rolled. The book is worth checking out. thanks.
Optional training for levelling (costs gold) but gives ADVantage on HP Die Rolls.... more detailed armor charts (same basic rules).... shields have HP... and simple Crit Hit and Fumble tables (roll 2d6). You could sling your weapon, fall prone, get an extra attack, damage your weapon, et al.
I like giving a “Favor Token” that allows a few options during play. It can add +1or +2 to any roll (d2), reroll any one die, gain a burst of health (lvl) (to prevent death, drink a potion or escape), to attack first in any turn....they can gain these tokens by impressing the DM (usually with role playing or story advancement without nudging).
I like the idea, but I also like that not all potions are made/brewed the same. What if it was crafted in haste and not as potent...or came from a goblin cave with not as good conditions to be making potions. Flavor perhaps?
@@trouqe If anything, it gives you a chance to create a new series of healing potions There's the core book ones, and then there's the static ones. It can be tactical (houserule), at the same time that the adventurers may have to take a risk with a poor healing potion (core book)
I think it would make since to use both. A health potion brewed by a master would be static and obviously be more expensive. One brewed by an apprentice would vary but be a cheaper option for your players when their coin purse is getting a little light.
As an idea for the flanking rule, how about when you fulfill the flanking conditions you can use the help action as a bonus action (or maybe a reaction) for the other creature you are co-flanking with?
I prefer that rule to potions healing maximum health to drinking potions as a bonus action, but I do like the change to critical hits a lot. The minions rule sounds like it would be fantastic for creating an epic, cinematic clash with a warlords forces or something. I might end up using these rules in my own games, when I start DMing o9n the regular.
Regarding Flanking: with my Group, I tried a different rule: when attacking a flanked creature, you get +1 for each creature flanking that creature. This encourages clever positioning and is not as strong as a flat value or Adv.
My main hatred of flanking isn't the generous bonus (which I also dislike) but that every player and enemy ends up in some sort of Conga Line of Death, and makes every battle a race to see who gets all the good spots first. Also makes my current DM abuse the Acrobatics skills to no end to make sure that avoiding flanking in tight spaces is impossible (by jumping over allied spaces or whatever). I'd rather just have a +1 if you have at least one ally adjacent to the enemy, if that (and not caring about this "positioning").
I use the critical hit rule! My players have really enjoyed it. They’ve wanted flanking back as a rule but I haven’t like granting them advantage, so I’ll try using this rule. I like the other rules as well
I got 2 for pathfinder. To avoid attack of opportunity with movement, you roll acrobatics against the enemy's CMD instead of just 15 The other is potions can be used as a move action
I have an interesting change for nat 1 and 20's where depending on the type of damage it gives different effect Bludeging blinds for 1d4 rounds Slashing does 2 (bleeding) damage for 1d4 rounds Magic damage gives 2 magic damage for 1d4 rounds Etc
I came up with the house rule that you reroll initiative every round. Its makes the combat more fluid. It can make a simple encounter easier or it can make it hard. First round all PCs rolls 15+.. then after the last turn, reroll and all PCs end up going last. It can be fun or it can hurt.
Thanks so much for playtesting these rules thoroughly before disseminating, and for the timestamps and document in the description! I wish all youtubers did so much research and preparation. +1 sub!
