D&D House Rules

Today I discuss how any rule changes or omissions we make can have an effect on the entire gameplay experience. House rules in D&D are a long-running tradition, but when we speak of the strengths or weaknesses of a game, we need to take into account how we are playing them.
Down in a Heap!
anchor.fm/rob-...
Welcome to Bandit's Keep
Check out my other channel BANDIT'S KEEP ACTUAL PLAY:
/ @banditskeepactualplay
Where I stream Various TTRPG systems.
Follow me on:
Twitter / banditskeep​
Instagram / ​
My podcast can be found here: anchor.fm/dani...

[@michaelmorrissey5631]

I am firmly in the “Dungeons&Dragons is a toolbox” School. Adding to or subtracting from the rules can be vital to the tone and Identity of “your” game. Indeed as I interpret it judicious meddling is vital to the spirit of the original game up to and including B/X.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@TheArcturusProject]

Oh also, I wouldn’t mind an explanation of any old rules you bring up. Not gonna lie, I do have trouble reading and interpreting that old rule book!

[@TheArcturusProject]

Or just the entire book....! I’ve tried to roll for magic items and I definitely get lost on when to roll what, and I have no clue what monster type should have what treasure, that whole chart is gibberish to me, with the percentage and the letters... I appreciated your magic sword video because I also struggled with that

[@BanditsKeep]

@@TheArcturusProject that’s a great video idea, thanks!

[@dantherpghero2885]

I was in a party of five once, we were playing 3rd ed. The monster (and treasure) was on a small island in the middle of a frozen lake. I was the only player that knew how much his character weighed and how much he was carrying. The others had not filled in height or weight for their characters and had not counted up how much they were carrying. When he found out the DM awarded me XP and made the others 'fix it' before we moved on. The DM and I went for pizza.

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice!

[@freddaniel5099]

"Undead destroying warrior!" Yes, that is the cleric in my mind, but I started with 3 little brown books and have refused to grow-up, so I still think of most things in FRP games much as I first encountered them in those 1974 era volumes. I love to tinker with the game, but I definitely acknowledge your point about it often has unintended consequences when we change a rule - or reinterpret the meaning of a rule.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@CaptCook999]

The encumbrance rules are very important for every game in my opinion. In one dungeon, I was the "mule" and carried the 2 bags of coins. Every time there was an encounter, I would have to drop the bags and draw my weapons which meant that I would always lose initiative. So my job besides being the mule was protecting the mage and guarding the rear.

[@BanditsKeep]

Nice!

[@MWodenberg]

I remember keeping track of iron rations. I also remember how nice it was when the wizard had Tenser's floating disk to haul out the loot. Who uses Tenser's now?

[@BanditsKeep]

Ah yes, floating disc!

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Iron rations, baby! Grab a fresh torch and a bit of flint, it’s on!

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Who needs disc when PCs can carry thousands of pounds with no encumbrance?

[@kalenplant2675]

@@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself I have no idea what janky maths you're using but PCs cannot carry thousands of pounds without becoming encumbered. and if you hate being able to carry so much, just use variant encumbrance. it's really that easy

[@Vasious8128]

I don't need to out run the Minotaur, I just need to outrun you

[@BanditsKeep]

exactly!

[@TheArcturusProject]

I LOVE your insight into ODnD as a cohesive whole. You give us a window into what the original magic fun and mystery was.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank You!

[@VMSelvaggio]

I definitely think Gygax and Arneson were geniuses, honestly, because there is a reason all of the rules in the early systems are there. I would love to be able to have a conversation/interview with them about why they put those rules there, what their thought-process was behind certain nuances.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@Marcus-ki1en]

Swapping stat scores is just a time saver from rolling characters until you get the one you want. Back in the day, I wrote a Basic Program that rolled characters and only kept the ones with scores over a certain number. I could generate hundreds of characters in a short time. Much easier to let players swap stats or raise the score to the lowest allowed and let them play the character they are wanting to play. In my experience, actually playing the Paladin is very different from wanting to play one for the players.

[@BanditsKeep]

Rolling till you get what you want would also be a house rule and have the same results

[@bonbondurjdr6553]

Making intelligent/meaningful decisions based on rules they understand and a cohesive world makes the game fun and worth playing!

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Down time means either for recovery or supplies when you’re out on campaign. Know how to make or take what you’ll need for battle.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@MuskyPickle]

I admit it. I'm addicted to tinkering with game systems. I admit I like trying to reinvent the wheel. It is an intellectual blast. Shoot 3/4th of the stuff I design never gets used, but it just brings me joy, ya know. Despite this, I can support the sentiment expressed here. Small changes can be super impactful. I learned that by messing around with damage reduction on armor. One of the things I love about this channel is the inspiring questions posed to the community about aspects of they game. It has led me to design several mini-mechanics I never would have, otherwise. In addition, it has tempered my desire to break things with an appreciation for the elegance of the original rules. It has awakened me to the value of simplicity in design and the concept of using abstractions. It has been of great value to me. Thanks for the great content.

[@BanditsKeep]

Thank you for the kind words! I too love to mess with and tinker with systems often see how far something can be manipulated and still work at my table

[@paavohirn3728]

I think "back in the day" we either missed or misinterpreted quite a few rules in the B/X. Lately when I went back to it I ended up changing nearly everything but i tried to keep what I enjoy for example in the exploitation rules.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@SexyPapaG]

You are absolutely right that a rule system is an eco system. There is wisdom in the idea of "play it before you change it". Because it NEVER works in your brain like it does the table. In my delve to the hobby, I uncovered some trivia. Dave Arneson's hit points system was to roll a d6, then that many number of d6's, and that's your hit points. This never changed when leveling, and from the beginning Arneson publicly criticized Gygax's "arbitrary" changes (many of which were made for odnd). This has lead to the realization: every rule is a house rule. When an author writes theirs, a lot of thought (probably) went to it. It's good to respect that, and understand their intent. Then one can take that understanding of the eco system, and tailor the game to suit one's table. Also, of note on encumbrance: ODnD's doesn't even seem all that bad! Supplies and torches are always the same (unless the Referee deems otherwise), just "cool" items are tracked. So, I feel you on these old school distortions.

[@SexyPapaG]

One reason I am tempted to change rules from the start is inclusivity. "Races as classes" is something I'm still pondering (thought I'm exploring a middle ground via multiclassing), and rating "Intelligence" is something that always bothered me, as someone who was called "stupid" as a child (i.e. had ideas others didn't grasp).

[@BanditsKeep]

Good point about HP and changes even as the original rules were released

[@BanditsKeep]

I can see that. I’ve messed with using “lore” instead of intelligence in the past

[@VMSelvaggio]

What I like to do for Archers or people using Arrows/bolts is, (and this is house-ruled) IF the player rolls an 6 or less on the Attack Roll and misses his/her target, the tip of the arrow snaps or the shaft splinters, rendering the arrow unusable.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@wanderinghistorian]

I learned this for real playing B/X solo. After I'd killed the dungeon boss, I realized I couldn't carry all the treasure out at once, so I had to make multiple trips. As a result I had to fight 2 random encounters which of course in B/X can be very dangerous. Since you don't get XP for killing monsters, the 2 randoms didn't give me anything but threatened to take away everything. Makes you think through this stuff.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure - Random monsters can really ruin your day - especially if you are encumbered by piles of gold

[@SimonAshworthWood]

Conan dislikes magic users. Perhaps this is why he wears so little armour: helps him to run as fast as the party’s magic users, so they have more chance of being eaten by monsters. 😉

[@BanditsKeep]

Maybe!

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Strategy!

[@aaronsmith5055]

Such a good point! Stuff I overlooked and handwaved as a kid led directly to stuff that would infuriate me as a dungeon master. Now it's more like rules that intrigue me as a potentially completely different kind of game.

[@BanditsKeep]

I feel the same way

[@robchristensen9678]

Great video Daniel. The one thing that bothers me a bit about B/X encumbrance specifically is that character stature and attributes have no impact on it (or movement rate for that matter). It certainly works fine as is. I find it odd though that a 6’2”, 220 lb human fighter with a 17 strength has the exact carrying capacity as a 3’, 65 lb halfling with a 5 strength. No big deal. Standardized procedure works fine. I do prefer encumbrance systems that consider those factors though. Very much agreed that using encumbrance and counting inventory makes the gameplay more interesting to me, and that tinkering can have unintended consequences (which aren’t always necessarily detrimental - sometimes just different). Thanks for the shout-out. 🥂

[@BanditsKeep]

Yeah, strength (and stature) should affect load limit IMO - but I lean so heavily into simple I can turn a blind eye to that…. plus I like to play halflings 😂

[@BanditsKeep]

@Jeff Jibson I don't know, I see these school kids getting on the bus with backpacks as big as them lol - seriously though, good point!

[@seanstone5848]

@@BanditsKeep If you use the monster entry movement rate for Dwarves 60’(20’) and Halflings 90’(30’) the encumbrance penalty for their stature is already figured in. The STR modifier to ENC. is trickier

[@BanditsKeep]

@@seanstone5848 ah, nice!

[@nonenothing8783]

The fact that you don't understand why a rule exists isn't evidence that you should change it. It is evidence that you should NOT change it. Chesterton's Encumbrance.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@FlutesLoot]

Absolutely! I wish more people approached it this way.

[@RodBatten]

Small changes to a small ruleset are probably not always small changes. Most of the OSR rulesets are not so much clones as fraternal twins of their respective editions; they've inherited DNA from other editions, favorite house-rules, and sometimes ideas from other games. It's really an exploration of the early, original idea of a hobby built around making the game your own. I played the games RAW back in the day, and the more we played, the more we wanted to fiddle around with the rules. So here we are in 2021 and I'm running LL with some interesting house rules, some balanced and some not so much, but it's interesting to see the cascading effect that a change has on the rules, the setting, and the tone of the game. House rules are like dials for tuning your game. Some people like pounding bass, some like harmony, some like improvisation. The thing about these earlier style rules that makes them so malleable, I think, is that they *aren't* always balanced. They are interesting precisely because they are often UNbalanced, and adding other stuff doesn't wreck your game, if you use the house rules as though you were seasoning soup.

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed

[@skidnsf]

Great Video. It has been said that OD&D is the True Dungeons and Dragons and every other addition/version is just someones house rules ( AD&D is Garys house rules). Although it can also be said that house rules were necessary in order for early gamers to make sense of the OD&D rules to begin with. That aside, I have always tinkered with rules as written in the past 40 years of playing whatever version. But I can honestly say Ive never actually played rules as written nor played with anyone who had. I do find myself in my late years constantly reading B/X or AD&D for instance to try and understand the game for what it was, and have begun to see the intent of the rules systems the author put forth . Weapon speed Weapon vs Armor Class, surprise round, psionic, and a few others take on a whole new meaning when being understood as opposed to being avoided.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@andrewhaldenby4949]

Daniel, great video and completely agree. Following the rules on counting torches etc means those items can become treasure themselves - imagine a party down to its last torch, that finds a dead adventurer with a lantern with full oil. Encumbrance emphasises differences between character classes and creates real choices of greed vs survival

[@BanditsKeep]

Ah yes, mundane items as treasure, I like that!

[@larsbangjensen5332]

Another great video and conversation :) I haven't thought of encumbrance that way.. "I don't have to outrun the bear.. I just have to outrun you"

[@BanditsKeep]

Indeed 🏃‍♀️

[@CaptCook999]

House rules are confusing sometimes if you have been playing things a different way for some time. I've played with rules for mages that were different in several campaigns. From use any spell you know (in your spellbook) to spells are cast using Mana Energy. Rules for clerics that they can cast any spell of 1st & 2nd level (they are rituals) but higher level spells must be prayed for. Most other classes didn't get any special treatment like spellcasters did.

[@BanditsKeep]

Spell casting is definitely an area people like to tinker in

[@willcool713]

I use lots of house rules in D&D. I lost all my players, but before shutdown I was just getting into implementing Fate points from that game. I've always used variations in character creation and I eventually settled upon this for stat rolls: 4d6, six times, all 1's rerolled, the stats organized as the player wishes. (It ups both the average stat from 10.5 to 13, if I recall right, and flattens the bell curve to make middling PC scores much more common. Plus it ensures no PC will have stats under 6.) It suits most people better. There are some who like grittier scores, but usually I cave toward a heroic tone. Back in the day, when modules might easily kill off a whole party -- especially in early levels -- I started all first level characters with hit points equivalent to their constitution plus their single hit die. This seems to work well for higher stakes at lower levels, and the advantage tapers off as the players progress. I usually give random NPC's six or ten hit points, so they wouldn't be push overs. But I also stuck to zero=dead rules, with a single day's time to possibly be raised by a cleric. I would give them death saves vs constitution (at a matching penalty for every point under 0 hp that they were hit); saves meant a week's coma before death (or if it was a serious blow, a day's bleed-out time). The only cantrips I allowed were extremely simple: Spark (momentary dim 10' light flash, plus the ability to light a candle or possibly other materials within a 10' line of sight), Puff of Wind (enough to blow a page of paper off a desk or ruffle a curtain, maybe cause a cold shiver down someone's back), Random Noise (a quick noise from the environment: creak, click, knock, clank, ping, etc., which is not in the caster's control, but the general direction of the noise is), Whisper (which allows one person within 15' to hear a few words more clearly -- for instance, over a battle or the sound of rushing water -- and somewhat muffles the caster's voice from others, in a quiet room for example.) There were a few esoteric ones, too. All unlimited usage if they know the spell, one turn recharge rate, except at higher levels. There is also a Fire Circle, a twisted together runic spell of a firestarter (vines, stems, or twigs, wound and woven into a particular palm-sized circlet, then cracked and broken into a tinder pile to light it; takes a turns or several to weave together; unwise to carry when old and dry) which I allowed common usage by all with bushcrafting skill. I have a lot more. One general rule I used always is that magic is common, but magic welders and magic items are not. Only natural magics like herbology for healing, or meditative seeing, or weather reading, have any passing familiarity to common folk, collectively referred to as witchery most often.

[@BanditsKeep]

Cool

[@willcool713]

@@BanditsKeep Didn't actually expect a response to a year old vid. I mostly left it to share ideas. But if you're listening, I would love to hear your thoughts in comment or video regarding the prevalence of magic, and the Monty Haul approach to powers, skills, levels, and equipment, in modern play. I remember old advice from Dragon Magazine that suggested doing all you could as a DM to keep magic minimized, because it becomes a slippery slope in progressing story terms, despite all efforts, because D&D is designed with magic heavy rules that can spin out of control. The notion being that too much magic passes out of the fantastic and into the absurd quickly and easily, left untended. The same seems true of all character traits these days, imo. And there seems a kind of machismo about player's characters these days, and the rules seem to pander to that, over character arcs and story development. I guess it is easier to brag about a badass character, than to tell campaign war stories, with the heroic details a lot of people don't really want to hear about. Anyway, idk. I wonder, though, because TTRPG's seem more like video games with dice these days, people looking for something like high scores instead of adventure and imagination.

[@MrRourk]

Yes this is exactly how we ended up with Paladium & Rifts. People made rules without understanding the current rules.

[@BanditsKeep]

I've heard a bit about those, but have never tried them

[@MrRourk]

@@BanditsKeep Everyone should play in a Mega Mad Gonzo Rifts Game at least once! Hell I may bring back my Old Rifts Voltron Game. This time keep it pure Voltron no Sailor Moon, no Dukes of Hazard, No Three's Company. and definitely no He Man!

[@BanditsKeep]

@@MrRourk That sounds amazing!

[@ZorValachan]

@@BanditsKeep The original 1e Palladium Role-playing game is a heavily House Ruled D&D/AD&D system (it's the game that hooked me for RPing, I didn't like D&D and around 1986 Palladium made sense to my 13 yr old mind (although my 48 yr old mind cries when I read it, hah). I love it, but it's broken in RAW. A GM with time and patience can polish it up to something amazing. Restructuring/tweaking it has been my side-project for 2021. Very OS in mentality and I'm enjoying GMing it after so many new school games left me without excitement in playing.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@ZorValachan cool!

[@ZorValachan]

Completely agree with this video. Each GM/Group can do whatever house rules they want, but I always advise to think of what consequences might happen. And yes, don't spring something on your group; have a handout or pdf with your House Rules, and if during play, let everyone know before the session (more advanced warning the better) Spell components and memorizing spells are a couple of other ones. Even official rules can have unintentional consequences on adding new material, updates and/or new editions. As a writer/designer (non-D&D) I keep in mind that introducing any new mechanic/spell/ability/etc. might upset a balance somewhere unexpected (especially when effects play off another effect) and when it's an Official product, it affects every table, not just your own - Which is probably a big reason why the majority of OSR is B/X based and not BECMI (Official changes were made that changed the game play, even if casual players don't see much of a difference at first glance).

[@BanditsKeep]

Good points

[@allenyates3469]

I've gotten to the point where I don't just have house rules, I have my own edition of the game lol. Complete with full custom players handbooks I can hand out!

[@BanditsKeep]

Awesome

[@brettsimpson1505]

I agree totally, Daniel. Modifying the rules is a dangerous game, and I’ve not seen many changes that actually make the game better. As for encumbrance and keeping track of resources, I think it’s an important responsibility for the players to do so. Dumbing down the game is popular nowadays, but I think it shows little faith in those who play it.

[@BanditsKeep]

Well said! When people tell me new players need things simplified, I always feel like they are off base.

[@cameronorwin]

I think that saying that wee are "dumbing down" the game is a backwards way of looking at it. I think that the original rules were terribly organized and extremely hard to understand. I think that Daniel and his friend learning the game from reading the book is extremely rare and very hard to do. Most people learned the game from others who learned from others etc. The rules were hardly ever actually read to learn the game and were more referenced and probably often misunderstood. The vast majority of the retro clones are not changing rules. They are organizing and simplifying and removing stupid and contradictory rules. I think that explaining the rules in a more logical manner or making the game easier to learn and play is not dumbing things down. I don't think that the original writers were smarter than modern day game designers and their ideas should be respected. I find the opposite to be true. They had no idea what they were doing and were making it all up as they went. We were not smarter because wee learned these complicated non-sensical rules. We just did it because that is what was available to us.

[@BanditsKeep]

@@cameronorwin Explaining rules are not simplifying- removing things you think people cannot grasp is the dumbing down part IMO - thinking people can’t learn how to follow procedures or keep track of inventory etc. I have respect for all game designers and to say that some don’t (or didn’t) know what they are doing is a pretty extreme point of view I can’t agree with even a little.

[@brettsimpson1505]

@@cameronorwin : On the contrary, I learned the game from reading the Moldvay rules as a boy. It’s not that difficult. Be that as it may, I wasn’t referring to retro-clones (that’s another story), but the trend toward things like getting rid of initiative or even the need for hit points. There’s a popular move toward that type of simplification these days.

[@cameronorwin]

@@BanditsKeep Daniel, maybe that came across a little harsh. I guess that my opinion is that the pioneers of the hobby weren't really trained in game theory or game design. They were making things up and putting together first drafts. I think that games today have the advantage of coming on 50 years of history to builds upon. They can see the mistakes that were made, see what worked, and what didn't work. Like most things, people have different tastes, but I really don't think that removing elements of the game that most people don't find fun is dumbing it down. The game started as a wargame. Then writers tries to make things "realistic". Then writers decided to make things "fun". I am very probably over simplifying that. Or I'm completely wrong. Lol Realize that my tone is a lot more confrontational than i intended. Sorry.

[@99zxk]

I'm not sure that clerics having healing at first level makes them a healer because a 1st level fighter can easily die in a round or two, and after casting that spell, the cleric is out.

[@BanditsKeep]

If given the choice I’ve found people who play games with healing at 1st level take that as their spell. But hey, perhaps you have a different experience and that’s awesome. What spell do you typically see 1st level clerics taking when they just have the one “slot”

[@99zxk]

@Bandit's Keep My point is that it's not wise to take cure light wounds due to how much damage monsters can put out compared to how few hp 1st level characters have, but you're right about people trying to be healers. Personally, I'd take light, cause fear, and maybe protection from evil. If we're doing the expanded Labyrinth Lord spells, I'd consider Command. In my games, I've started using a ritual casting system like 5e, except it still uses their daily limit and takes 1 turn. It seems to allow people to not feel stuck with CLW as they can cast it after combat and are experimenting with some different spells.

[@retrodmray]

BFRPG, like BX, does this really easily, and I think, as a very, very longterm and Old OSR DM, is verisimilitude-giving and an essential part of the game... just like the players making their own maps or otherwise they get lost. I shouldn't have to lead them around. 🙂👍Thnx, Daniel!

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure! I've been enjoying your read through, BTW

[@retrodmray]

@@BanditsKeep Cool...thnx a lot, Daniel!

[@FlutesLoot]

I've done improv for more than ten years and the same concepts apply. Master the rules before you entertain changing them or you'll do it in ignorance.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

You can't think outside the box until after you know what is inside it.

[@aurvay]

Great video as usual. Omitting encumbrance is not house-ruling your game imho, as carrying capacity is one of the most important factors that impact the gameplay as you need to earn xp for gold. Then again, encumbrance rules were nowhere perfect in either of the first iterations of the game (B/X and AD&D) and had to be tinkered around to work for your table - as long as they were there. Earlier D&D rules were set by trial and error anyways and I’d call the entire system a collection of house rules.

[@BanditsKeep]

For sure

[@MrRourk]

You should buy the Arduin Trilogy Red Hardbound Book. It is a steal at the current price.

[@BanditsKeep]

The ultimate set of house rules?

[@MrRourk]

@@BanditsKeep that is the Perrin Convention and it is in the back of All The World's Monster II.

[@erikmartin4996]

To date I do not believe anyone has come up with a simple realistic encumbrance/movement system

[@BanditsKeep]

I believe that would be a Herculean task - IMO all that is needed is a form of risk/reward

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

With house rules you really need to understand the core of the system and the important rules that make the system work before you can make effective rules. That way you know what will happen when you turn the dials or break the dials off or add new dials. Like, when. I started looking at B/X I thought to use the ability check optional rules a lot and base encumbrance on strength. At this point, understanding the system more, I would likely very rarely use ability checks and at least start encumbrance without a strength component. Or maybe something simple like plus or minus 100 coins per strength modifier. Making the system more reliant on ability scores seems to really undermine a lot of the philosophy of the system.

[@BanditsKeep]

Right, I agree

[@underfire987]

Great content as always man! I am so happy to be in the OSR now I am just trying to get all my friend groups into it lol

[@BanditsKeep]

Thanks

[@tobiasholm2717]

Playing 5e, my DM rules getting up from prone requires an action. Not that big of a deal until you fight 6 flying magic swords in mud that automatically knock you prone when they hit you. We were two people stuck in the mud just dodging, 1 guy who thought he might get to keep a sword if he grappled it for long enough (his first campaign, DM should just have told him it was impossible) and then a wizard who had Ray of frost and Toll the Dead. Flying magic swords have crazy AC, so toll the dead would be optimal if not the DM required the target to be able to hear things, which swords don't. I think that simple combat took over 25 rounds ( rounds, not turns) where I simply said "I dodge" in the majority of them. Even smaller changes in combat rules can end up changing a situation for the worse. We also only survived because our DM decided not to attack downed characters and lucky die rolls.

[@BanditsKeep]

Yikes! Yes that does seem a small change until you test it (as you seem to have the hard way)!

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

What was the change? Of course getting up from prone takes an action. If not, then the prone condition is meaningless and should never happen.

[@tobiasholm2717]

​ @mdiem In D&D 5e, it takes half your movement to get up from prone. In 5e, prone is designed to be a rather mild condition. There are other conditions designed to be more detrimental, for instance Restrained, which is basicly Prone but stronger and typically takes an action to attempt to remove. The problem with changing making Prone stronger is that a Player Character drops Prone when falling unconscious. So when getting up from Prone now takes an action, a Death Spiral has been created: 1) Player X drops to 0 HP and falls uncounscious and prone. 2) Player Y spends their Action healing Player X. 3) Player X must then use their Action to stand up from Prone. So Player X hitting 0 HP now costs 3 actions instead of 2. But it does not stop there. Because Player X loses their action to standing up, the baddies will have their turn before Player X can use their turn to kill the baddies or escape. This means Player X is likely just going to get knocked uncounscious again. And then you start at 1) again, and quickly you have a Total Party Kill. It has been 8 months since my original comment, I promise you, changing Prone to cost an action is NOT healthy for D&D 5e. I could go further on how it punishes players more than NPC and such, but I hope you get the point.

[@sgtbigballs666]

Great content, pose alot of excellent points, I generally only use encumbrance when it becomes something ridiculous to carry haha

[@BanditsKeep]

This is a fairly common way to run it for sure