Post/Author/DateTime	Post
babysamurai 07-17-06, 09:07 AM	Where do you draw the line on your tolerance level of House-Rules (if any). I don’t mind the odd “Monks may multi-class freely”, or “I’ve changed the favoured class for elves.” Or anything alone those lines. But I will run screaming if I hear one more DM say “Hey, check out my awesome Critical Fumble table.” I’m not bad-mouthing House-Rules. If it makes the game more enjoyable for “everyone”, then that can only be a good thing. But where do you draw the line?
Thiez 07-17-06, 09:34 AM	I'm the DM. I don't draw lines, I cross them! :devil:
babysamurai 07-17-06, 09:35 AM	I'm the DM. I don't draw lines, I cross them! :devil: I'm usually the DM too. But the question still stands. ...Like a mighty sausage.
Dragonteuthis 07-17-06, 09:40 AM	I draw the line at things that slow down combat (my style involves large battles with miniatures). I draw the line at players creating custom-made prestige classes for their own characters. I draw the line when people say "well, realistically..." when talking of the game (It's fantasy). I draw the line at non-wotc supplements. I don't draw the line at Psionics. And yeah, I try to draw the line at anything that seriously (and negatively) impacts the PCs (Like the aforementioned fumble table).
SeptimusMagistos 07-17-06, 09:40 AM	You draw a line if a rule interferes with everyone's enjoyment of the game. If it's a problem get rid of it. If it's not learn to live with it.
Weaponbreaker 07-17-06, 09:54 AM	Agreed to all above, except monk and pali's yur outa luck unless you take the feats to multiclass.
Zherog 07-17-06, 10:02 AM	I draw the line at things that slow down combat (my style involves large battles with miniatures). I agree. I draw the line at players creating custom-made prestige classes for their own characters. I actually encourage players to devise their own prestige class concepts, then we design them together. To me, this is a far cry better than a player who feels he needs to take levels in four prestige classes to accomplish his character concept. I draw the line when people say "well, realistically..." when talking of the game (It's fantasy). I agree. I draw the line at non-wotc supplements. I allow non-WotC material the same way I allow WotC material; if it's not in the core books, I reserve the right to veto part or all of a book. I think I've actually said no to more things WotC than non-WotC actually. I don't draw the line at Psionics. I don't actively say no at the start of a campaign; but once a campaign starts it's either in or out. I prefer out, simply because I don't know the rules well. And yeah, I try to draw the line at anything that seriously (and negatively) impacts the PCs (Like the aforementioned fumble table). Oh hell yes, I agree here.
babysamurai 07-18-06, 07:16 AM	To me, there is nothing wrong with the outright banning of a class/feat etc. At least I know what I can work with. I don't mind variants of classes, like the ones in Dragon mag - Hunting Monk, Mystic Ranger etc. What I don't like is excessive tweaking/nerfing of a class/feat/spell etc. "In my campaigns, Wizards can't..." or "I think Rangers should..." But my least favourite type of House-Rule has to be "In my campaign there is a 7th ability score - Luck!"
FlameLover 07-18-06, 08:02 AM	As I DM making the house-rules, draw the line if the players won't have as much fun. As long as a house rule allows the players more fun, then I'll use it.
Rancorous_Fool 07-18-06, 10:45 AM	I have played under a wide variety of house rules. I am sure other peopel have too. But, the ones that are the worst definately just add useless fluff to things. A couple that suck: Critical fumbles (though i have seen this done well and somply), losing appendages, No AoO (cause the DM didn't think zombies would provoke), and just re-working things on the fly " cause thats more realistic." Though, one that worked out amazingly. No diplomacy skill. The others are all there to be used, but only as tools. You must RP all diplomacy. *shrug* it worked
Puca 07-18-06, 10:56 AM	As a player: If it is going to make the game less fun than mowing my lawn, Im not going to get involved. Things that are sold as "flavor," but in reality are massive power-shifts toward one class (And why is it always arcane casters by the way? Not powerful enough already?) are the only things that really set me off. As a DM: only for the sake of consistency, expediency, and simplicity. My primary thing is I want the players to have fun. A world that you make or an adventure youve created represent a lot of time and effort, but if no one plays, youve wasted it. Sticking to WotC material fairly closely has never caused a significant problem for them.
Azezel 07-18-06, 11:14 AM	The problem with making people rp diplomacy, is that they may not be as diplomatic as their characters ( know I sure as hell don't have a +7 modifier). Getting rid of Diplomacy is like saying 'No BaB - I want you to roleplay attacks. here's your battleaxe.' The best system is simply to have the player explain what their character s trying to acomplish, the gist of the mesgage, and then roll diplomacy as normal. As for house rules - I don't like Critical Fumble charts (I've never seen one that was not merely malicious) and I draw the line at a DM telling me that I cannot have a skill I'm entitled to. (Make it CC if you want, make me find a mentor, make me pay for it, whatever - but don't just say it don't exist)
Puca 07-18-06, 11:24 AM	The problem with making people rp diplomacy, is that they may not be as diplomatic as their characters ( know I sure as hell don't have a +7 modifier).In real life, my CHA mod is like -4. I dont want to play me. I live me. RP is great, but you can require it and still use a fair objective method for establishing how well it all worked out. But whatever works for you and yours.
Identitystolen 07-18-06, 01:08 PM	I used "Fumbles' Fumble Chart" ("Goblins" webcomic by Tarol Hunt) for a half-orc barbarian PC, and he loved it. Outside of the usually malicous critical fumbles, it has lucky fumbles that have a positive effects for the PC. Fit perfectly with his character (whos dex was 9 if I remember correctly) and in many instantaces provided in game comic relief without deviating from the game. Though the "Wardrobe Malfunction" part has caused many nightmares among my players. :D I allow custom player on a person to person basis. The new guy or known "optimizer" I rarely allow, but someone with experience and plays the game just to relax and enjoy it I allow some free reign with unique characters. Still, I check them against the DMG and PHb and campaign to ensure they won't get anniliated or destroy the world with a sneeze. The use of supplements I also take on a case by case basis. If there is a part in a book, WotC or not, that fits well I allow it. No harm, no foul. I forgot what it was, but D20 book on ships ended up working a lot better (setting and gameply wise) than what was availble in WotC books we had. Based off of that experience I've had no problems with outside books. And I completely agree with Dragonteuthis... People who keep saying "well, realistically..." get annoying quick.
Inigo Carmine 07-18-06, 02:22 PM	I draw the line at things that slow down combat Agreed. A lot of things I'd like to add to the game for flavor reasons get nixed by this, my first and foremost thing I check on my list of House Rules Rules. I draw the line at players creating custom-made prestige classes for their own characters. Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean custom designing them to remove aspects of a class you never use to gain insane benefits then I totally agree. One that is actually balanced (unlike 95% of even official WotC ones) is fine though, even if custom-built. I'm a big opponent of prestige classing in the usual sense now though; as it seems like people think they're supposed to be more powerful than normal classes (and not have balancing drawbacks). I draw the line when people say "well, realistically..." when talking of the game (It's fantasy). I find the biggest problem with this is that people are usually wrong, and the D&D version is closer to reality than their misguided perception of it. Most often though, anything that attempts to realistically model reality better than D&D conflicts with the first rule of not bogging down the game. I draw the line at non-wotc supplements. Being WotC is not a garuntee of quality unfortunately. I don't care if its from a 3rd party publisher or a note you found when you washed your jeans, if it's balanced and fits the flavor, its probably allowed. I don't draw the line at Psionics. I actually much prefer the psionics system to the vancian spell system (I've never read his novels, but I can't for the life of me look at it as anything other than a contrived and clunky system that doesn't make sense in anything other thana game mechanic). That being said, I don't like magic and psionics in the same place, and magic is more built into the system, so no psionics. (I wish I could replace magic with psionics and just call that magic) And yeah, I try to draw the line at anything that seriously (and negatively) impacts the PCs (Like the aforementioned fumble table). Agreed. Very very agreed. Most house rules I add are an attempt to address balance. Even these though are subject to Rule #1.
Squirrelloid 07-18-06, 02:36 PM	But my least favourite type of House-Rule has to be "In my campaign there is a 7th ability score - Luck!" Wait, you mean the 7th ability score wasn't Comeliness? Sheesh, some people... =p
SokenzanMarauder 07-18-06, 03:04 PM	I draw the line at players having more classes then they have letters in their names (honest to god had it happen once). To a lesser extent of the above: I draw the line at players having more than three or four classes (including PRCs). I draw the line at players bringing printouts of D&D books they've downloaded for use in my game (I don't get what they can't understand about "Only books I own." I draw the line at players metagaming more than they role-play. I draw the line at attempts of munchkinism (ex. "Can I have the half-dragon template pleeeeaassseeee?") I draw the line at players being disruptive to a campaign setting (ex. Bringing Snow Dwarves into a desert campaign) That's pretty much it, for the most part.
Thiez 07-18-06, 03:59 PM	doesn't the half-dragon template suck if you have to take the level adjustment?
SokenzanMarauder 07-18-06, 04:42 PM	doesn't the half-dragon template suck if you have to take the level adjustment?Personally I think it does, but some people like all the bonuses (Namely +8 str and a breath weapon) it hands out. It was more of an example than an actual case though. -Gene
Shinryouga 07-18-06, 04:48 PM	I invoke the usually chain: Realism USUALLY makes the game more complex which USUALLY slows down game which USUALLY makes game less fun. If the chain can be broken, then the house rule is probably ok, if not, probably not. Its all about the fun!
Bane 07-18-06, 07:52 PM	Realism. When players bring it up, I tell them that realism left when the old guy with the journal threw bat guano at you, and it exploded. This has been further distilled into "Realism? It got killed by that fireball." Should they insist, I remind them that I know more about reality than they do. One grain of sand accelerated to relativistic speeds through magic later, they'll agree.