|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
My Palace of the Vampire Queen 5e game is heavily house ruled
Sounds like you might have a lot to talk about in this thread. I'm interested in what you've house ruled and why you felt the core rule was problematic. Personally, my house rules have grown fewer over time.
Perhaps a 5e house rule thread is called for?
Of course I can use Stealth, even though I don't have it as one of my proficiencies. It was next in line for the skills I wanted, but I only got to pick three. So I'm only OK at it; for my character concept, I'd like to be actually good at it.
In PF, I could say "Oh, I don't have quite enough skill points to keep everything I want maxed. I'll have to give up some of my Con to get more Int so I can get another."
In 5e, I'm left saying "Oh, I don't get enough skill proficiencies to be good at all the things I want... Darn."
You can customize a background if you want a specific skillset, but to get more, you'd need a feat.
It is a weakness of 5e that there is nothing to trade in for skills/tools at character creation. But INT should not be the thing to do it. INT to skills means casters, who already have a spell for every occasion, also would have more skills than a 5e rogue and nearly as many as a 3e rogue. This is actually a weakness of 3e. Even though it works out great for non-INT casters who want extra skills, it's broken for INT casters, which means it's a broken rule. So 5e did right in taking skills away from INT, but there should be another way to make such trades.
Seems like there was a thread a while back about an equitable tradeoff between various proficiencies. Like, could you drop shield proficiency to gain a skill? I forget the outcome of that discussion. If I were to house rule something, it would be along those lines.