Three House Rules to Fix D&D (at least the big stuff)

If you like what I do and would consider supporting this channel through Patreon:

If you would like to know how I calculate damage or how baseline damage is determined, I go through it in this video:

Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
1:14 Problems with House Rules
6:28 House Rule #1
10:23 House Rule #2
16:21 House Rule #3
20:50 Summary

Join my discord:

Follow me on Twitter:

[jacoboverstreet]

The house rule I’ve been using for a few years now that works really well is that everybody who shows up on time ready to go gets a free inspiration.

[trombonegamer]

I think the second rule is pretty focused on optimized play. My groups have never had the problem of wizards and sorcerers in half plate because it just doesn't fit in with the fantasy my players have. They're not super into optimized play

[MrSpeakerCone]

I find your list kinda perplexing, but then again I don't play at a table full of optimizers. If anything, I need to house-rule stuff to make them more powerful because they frequently do things that are so sub-optimal that it risks TPKs on encounters which by rights should be trivial.
Super interesting to learn about how you do things at your table, as always :)

[NageIfar]

My favorite implementation of rule 3 is proficiency penalty to attack, twice proficiency bonus to damage.

[nlmod]

The one house rule I use for about 2 years is... Everyone starts with a feat at lvl 1. This make my players come up with a lot more fun and wacky builds, also makes some more viable like dual-wielding.

[danieljohnson]

As a new player: the Shield spell is just COOL. (Independent of its power.) Reactions in general are cool, and Shield is the coolest reaction. The fantasy of throwing up a magical shield to barely stop an incoming flurry of attacks is just awesome fantasy. So I know I would be sad to lose it.

I also love the fantasy of spell-slinging frontline fighters in armor and shield.

So my objections are actually thematic. :)

[BladeHobo]

Personally, as a DM, I think it's important to do routine housekeeping by rotating out house rules. I keep a 2 page limit to my house rules. If I exceed that, then I cut the worst rules out beforehand

[theodrax]

I think most of these house rules are fixing issues that don’t exist in most games. Perhaps they help in games where the whole table is full of optimizers, but in your standard game with casual players they might actually hurt gameplay. I think the optimization community sometimes loses track of what a standard game table is like.

[Theosis]

I have to agree with some of the people here, while I can understand these rules being inacted in a power-playing table it hasn't been a problem at my table.

[thebitterfig]

One thing I like about #1 & #2 is that it reinforces a bit of a social compact between players and DMs. Players get more squishy, but DM will choose monsters that will miss more by default, and we'll allow the wizard and sorcerers to avoid attacks through active decision making.

It seems like a pledge from the DM: "If you don't try to break the game, I won't try to punish you for playing the game how it was intended."

For example, if the DM bans Shield and shields and medium armor on Wizards, hopefully that DM won't have a bunch of monsters teleport back to the Wizard to attack that low AC. Folks might try to run past the Fighter, but this will give the Fighter a chance to stop those monsters. It's letting the players protect themselves through active and creative gameplay on the table, rather than passive feats.

What I hope could happen on the flip side: if someone really wanted to be the Mountain Dwarf Wizard, they get attacked as much as the Paladin in Plate. There's a particular fantasy to some kind of arcane front-liner, but that should be paid for in terms of subjecting such a wizard to the hazards of the front line.

[aidenf.]

I appreciate that these rules broaden the possibility of optimisation. Any changes that open up more effective character builds and concepts is a positive imo.

[mrbean]

When rolling damage for a crit, we max the damage of the initial die and roll one on top of it. Ensures that a crit is always better than a regular hit.

[psimitar]

I love these house rules. Anything to narrow the gap between martials and spell casters is a good thing in my book. The only thing I would change is on Rule 3. -5/+10 Is pretty punishing for low level characters. Intead I would use minus your proficiency bonus to hit, double your proficiency bonus for damage. This makes it more achievable at lower levels and even more rewarding at higher levels

[HWORD-xghi]

I'm very fortunate, my players don't tend to have a desire to push the limits of optimization so much so that there's a need for these house rules. Though, if they start, I'll be sure to implement them! Thanks Chris!!

[darthwikkie]

1) This makes War Wizards even better, and I am here for it.
2) This makes Valor and Swords Bards even better, and I am here for it.
3) This makes Monks suck less, and... sure, why not.

[MrABK]

My favourite Houserule is for two weapon fighting.

-only the second weapon needs to be Light.
-roll both damage on a hit, keep highest.
- if both rolls are the same, add them up.

No more bonus action hogging,

[robjob]

This is really interesting! I like how the first two rules allow for straight class warlocks/bards that can ignore the moderately armored feat. Also the last rule doesn’t lock a martial character into Vuman/Custom lineage

[DM-Timothy]

Tested these rules (with a few tweaks) for almost 300 sessions now. Tweaks definitely needed in a few places, but by and large these rules have been a huge game-changer for leveling the playing field at my tables. Thank you!

[brianmclaughlan]

Rule #2 is interesting to me for a couple of reasons.
a) It reminds me of the old (2e?) rule that arcane casters simply can't wear armor. I remember loving when that rule went away, but yeah, that made casters even more powerful than they already were. I like this houserule much better. Allows some armor, doesn't discriminate between arcane and divine casting, and gives a big equipment distinction between characters.

b) Rule #2 almost *almost* gets rid of the need for Rule #1. Let's look at who still gets the Shield spell + armor if Rule #2 exists but Rule #1 doesn't. I'm listing them in order of increasing concern:
1. Battlesmith and Artilerist artificers. I'm completely fine with this. These are not overpowered casters.
2. Arcane Tricksters. Frankly, if they're taking Shield, they aren't taking Find Familiar, which I consider more appropriate for them.
3. Eldritch Knight. EK subclass is almost "fighter with Shield spell", and they'd be choosing this ability over Battlemaster or Rune Knight, which are both probably better. Yes, their AC becomes incredible, but since it already plays like a martial and not a caster (as it should), this isn't a problem.
4. Bards (using Magical Secrets). Valor bards can get a very high AC for a casting class with this, but they're using up a 10th level class feature to do it. That's a pretty high opportunity cost, so its probably fine. The other subclasses aren't quite as problematic: Lore can get Shield earlier; Swords can get AC almost as high, but a Swords player probably wants to get mixed up in melee; the other subclasses aren't an issue at all -- the opportunity cost is way too high for the benefit.
5. Bladesinger wizard. Now we're starting to get into some subclasses that are probably problematic. This guy can get a high AC on a casting class. On the other hand, the Bladesinger's whole schtick is that it is a wizard that can often have a good AC, so it may not be quite as big an issue? I don't know.
6. Hexblade warlock. Implementing Rule#2 without Rule#1 makes Hexblade more desirable, as if it really needed the bump. On the plus side, they'd have to use one of their precious pact slots to cast it, so Sorlocks couldn't use their 1st level slots on it.

My verdict? I'd probably implement Rule #2 without #1, and just warn the table from the start that I may require the players to swap out Shield if it looks like it still warps the game. The Weave is fickle, you know.

Oh, and I'm definitely implementing Rules #2 and #3. I really like those.

[sneedfest]

I have a gigantic word document of house ruled class changes, subclass tweaks and new rules. I have implemented exactly 2 of them (Giving Monks a 13th level feature and adding spells to arcane archer) because they're such a PITA for people to remember