Are there any game breaking consequences in this multiclass house rule?

Follow up to this question.

So, as stated in that question, I feel that it is quite weird that a 3rd level paladin + 2nd level Ranger is not equivalent to a 5th level Half-caster (such as a 5th level Paladin), but weaker (being equivalent to a 4th level Paladin).

With that in mind, I intend to use the following multiclassing house-rule for determining the spell slots:

  • Sum the levels of the half-casters first. So, in the example, 3 + 2 = 5.
  • Divide by two. (Divide by three for Arcane Fighter/Rogue – both after summing them together as well).
  • Round it to closest integers, rounding .5 up.

Obviously, this only applies to classes that actually have the spellcasting feature, i.e., the Paladin and Ranger should be at least 2nd level, and the Fighter or Rogue should be at least 3rd level.

Such an idea is not novel and already appears in the Artificer, which is explicitly described as having its half-caster levels being rounded up.

From my understanding, this house-rule will mirror the behavior of single class spellcasting of half-casters and third-casters more closely (not entirely – rounding up would mirror it perfectly). Is there any weird edge case that I am missing that would make this house-rule imbalanced in any way?

The only reason I round to nearest integer rather than directly rounding up is that a 4th level Arcane Fighter would contribute as much to the spellcasting as a 4th level half-caster. Although this is what happens in single class, my gut feeling was that this would make dipping 4 levels in a Fighter, for example, be considerably stronger than before, since specifically 4th level also includes an ASI.

Would this Point Buy house rule for Maid character creation work at all?

Recently we’ve started a maid game here on the stack and we have a huge disparity of stats between the players, one of them has barely average stats, while some of the other players are pushing fours and sixes in abilities because of great rolls during generation. We have found that the standard rule that characters with good stats get fewer maid powers is insufficient.

Would a point buy system work in Maid RPG while still being able to attain the same level of play in Maid games? Using the favor base presented in the handbook I’ve come up with the following figures for point buy statistics. The standard array in Maid would be 1,1,2,2,3,3 or you could buy points at the following costs, with 200 starting favor:

0: 0 points
1: 10 points
2: 30 points
3: 60 points
4: 100 points

With the stipulation that any favor points not used during point buy are lost. Does a system like this function properly in the Maid system provided the Maid characteristics (Boyish, Sexy, Lolita, Pure, etc.) were rolled after (and only after) a character has distributed their points as they wish?

Is this house rule to balance the college of whispers bard balanced?

As a player and a dungeon master, I feel like the Psychic Blade of the college of whispers bard is really unbalanced regarding the Sneak Attack feature of the rogue.

First of all, they mostly does the same amount of damage… But the Psychic Blade does psychic damages, where the sneak attack’s damage type is the one of the weapon (bludgeoning, piercing or slashing). The problem is that psychic damage is one of the less resisted type of damage, where bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damages are the most resisted type of damages.

Second, Psychic Blade is way easier to trigger than Sneak Attack, only needing to spend a Bardic Inspiration (which come back on short rest after level 5) and you have it, where Sneak Attack require advantage or an ally to use it.

So, looking those elements, I decided to replace the cost Bardic Inspiration of Psychic Blade with a condition. To use the Psychic Blade feature, you don’t need to spend a Bardic Inspiration, you need advantage on charisma check against your target, be under the Mantle of Whispers feature effect, or the target have to be frightened or charmed before the attack hit.

To me, it keep the flavor of a bard that is also a killer, still synergyse with the others college of whisper features, but make it a little bit harder to the bard to have the Psychic Blade. But is it balanced?

Is a critical failure on a natural 1 a rule or house rule?

There’s a question about this relating to 3.5e, but I couldn’t find one for 5e.

According to RAW, is a natural 1 a critical failure? And if so, under what scenarios does it apply, and what is the expected result?

One of my players is dissatisfied with my calls relating to 1’s* but I don’t have my books handy and I’m having trouble figuring out if the whole shebang is a very popular houserule or actually in RAW.

*I have a feeling that I am likely in the wrong here and it’s more of a same-page issue than a mechanics one, but I want to check what the book’s ruling is before we sit down to have a conversation about it. Our table dynamics aren’t the question here; I just need to know the mechanics to make an informed decision.

[ Personal Finance ] Open Question : Should I let my in-laws buy my house and carry the note instead of just going through a regular refinance?

I am have great credit (785) and am currently in the early stages of refinancing (rate not locked but looking like 3,5% fixed 30 yr) I called my father and law (and his realtor fiance) just out of due diligence to see if they thought this was a good rate considering the clients they’ve seen purchase homes recently. They said it sounded pretty competitive and so I pulled the trigger with the mortgage company. Now today They called and said they were talking and think they would like to buy the house, and carry the note for us at the same interest rate and terms, but also with the option for 10-20k cash out if we want it. I wasn’t really looking for this and am not sure what to make of it. They said they were looking for somewhere to invest some money they recently made and thought it would be a win-win. I’m not sure. I trust their motives financially, but I worry about them divorcing later, or implied favors (none implied as of yet). I suppose there’s always the possibility of them being very generous with the payments or sale of the house down the road, but that’s also definitely not a given. Sounds like the same deal either way for me, but with the possibility of ugly family stuff down the road. Is there an angle I’m not seeing here?

Allowing more spell slots at the expense of fatigue: Will this house rule break the game?

I playing D&D 5e. PHB (Chapter 10: Spellcasting) states that (emphasis mine):

Regardless of how many spells a caster knows or prepares, he or she can cast only a limited number of spells before resting. Manipulating the fabric of magic and channeling its energy into even a simple spell is physically and mentally taxing, and higher-level spells are even more so. Thus, each spellcasting class’s description (except that of the warlock) includes a table showing how many spell slots of each spell level a character can use at each character level.

I want to emphasize this aspect in my homebrew world so I have come up with the following house rule:

Inner Reserves: A spellcaster can exceed the number of spell slots normally allocated to her at the expense of fatigue. When a spellcaster has no more spell slots but deems it absolutely necessary to cast a spell, she can push herself to the limit and exhaust her inner reserves to cast a spell. The level of the spell will result at an equal level of exhaustion gained by the caster. For example, if the spell cast is level 2, then the caster will gain two levels of exhaustion.

Reasoning

I would like to use this house rule for several reasons:

  1. Fair Exchange: In my eyes, this is a fair exchange. Gaining one level of fatigue will most likely not make a difference in a battle but that is also the case for a Level-1 spell. On the contrary, when gaining two levels of fatigue or more, the PC becomes extremely vulnerable. So this is a high-risk high-reward scenario. If you are about to exhaust yourself you better make sure that you will win the fight.
  2. Dramatic Effect: I think it goes without saying that such a mechanism can lead to some very dramatic moments. I can imagine several scenarios where a spellcaster exhausts herself to heal the group or cast one last fireball that ultimately saves the day.

Potential Problems

An immediate problem I identify is that this rule allows all classes to cast 5 more Level-1 spells (or less at higher levels). This may break some classes that are designed to cast very few spells per day (e.g., Warlock, Paladin). On the other hand, I feel that this imbalance is mitigated by the severe consequences of high exhaustion levels. I.e., I don’t think that it’s viable to abuse this mechanism.

Questions

  • Will this house rule completely break the game?
  • Which classes are going to be affected the most?
  • Are there any other unforeseen consequences introduced by this rule? (i.e., unrelated to classes)

Finally, if this rule does not completely break the game, I would ideally like to read about how you’d improve it, but I feel that this may push rpg.stackexhange.com‘s rules a bit, so feel free to omit this part.

Balance implications of these output to input luck change house rules?


What classes and approaches are helped and/or hindered by this set of house rules?

For an upcoming DnD 5e campaign I am considering two house rules, both of which substantially effect one another. The implications are far reaching and complex enough I am having trouble deciding what classes, techniques, and playstyles come out ahead or behind.

Rule 1: Players Roll Rule

  • When a PC is attacked, they roll a defense and add ac bonus vs a static attack (calculated as attack bonus +10)
  • When a PC casts a save spell on an NPC they roll, and add the DC bonus (static save for npc is calculated as save+12)

Rule 2: Deck Play in Combat

  • Use a 52 card deck (without Jokers) instead of a D20 during combat rounds.
    • When initiative is rolled in combat draw 10 cards.
    • When a D20 would be rolled as part of an action (not a free action) instead you must play a card from your hand.
    • Red number cards are listed value
    • Black number cards are listed value plus 10
    • Aces are 1 (1 if red, 11 if black)
    • Royals are top of your discard minus a value. K=D-1, Q=D-2, J=D-3
      • If the top card of the discard is a royal or the discard is empty, the royal is =2
      • When the last card is played from your hand, draw back up to ten
    • When the last card is drawn from your deck, shuffle in the discard.
  • Adv and Disadv
    • Advantage is “play 1 card from your hand, and the top card of the deck, take the higher result”
    • Disadvantage is “play 1 card from your hand, and the top card of the deck, take the lower result”
  • You may take a full round action to discard your entire hand and draw up to ten.

NOTES

The title of this campaign, as pitched to the players, is “An extremely house rule heavy and experimental campaign” so they at least know what they’re in for. ^_^

Rule tweaks and alternatives sound conversationally fun, but are not quite answers.

The motivation here is to turn some output random into input random, inspired by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwI5b-wRLic

This is intended to embrace the “figure out the enemies’ ac/hp/attack value” aspect of some combat.