House Rules in the Middle of a Campaign [Archive] - Wizards Community

House Rules in the Middle of a Campaign [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JesseDennehy
06-05-05, 03:18 AM I have a question about something a DM did in one of the campaigns I play in. The party has been playing for about a year. This week the DM introduces the following house rule that severly nerfed over my wife's character.

He decided that he does not like how the max skill limit works for multiclassed characters (i.e. the rogue 3/swashbuckler 3 can have a max skill cap of 9 is open locks).

He just decided that the cap for multiclassed character should be 6 for the any skill that is not a class skill for both classes. I believe his math is based on the 3 levels + 3 that gets added to the cap for all class skills.

So now he wants the existing character to reallocate all the skill points she already spent. That sort of cripples the character concept she created.

I would chalk it up to a heavy handed DM trying to get an overpowered character back into like, but it was a freaking Desert Kobold Rogue/Swashbulker for heavens sake. That character fit her niche well (springing traps, opening locks, bluffing, disquise and tumbling). But she was not going to replace the Chain Fighter or any other high powered builds on the Munchkins Most Wanted Table.

An old copy of her character sheet (from when she was a Rogue 2/Swashbuckler 3) can be found at this link just to verify that she was not super cheesy.

http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/jeffs_greyhawk/meah.html

Am I crazy? Am I just biased cause this is my wife?

Has anyone ever seen a house rule like that get introduced into the middle of play?
Tenzhi
06-05-05, 03:38 AM I generally don't have a problem with introducing rules in the middle of a campaign if the DM has good reason; however, it's my opinion as a DM that that's just a bad ruling to begin with. If he has a problem with the character opening too many locks he should just use locks with higher DCs and/or put nasty traps on them.
Torack
06-05-05, 04:24 AM I agree with Tenzhi. It sounds as if the lady in question is succeeding at too many rolls to the DM's liking.

I'd attempt to strike up a casual conversation to try and find out why he introduced the sudden rule-change if it bothers you or the missus. Preferably in her company.
VerinBlod
06-05-05, 07:13 AM I don't mind introducing houserules in the middle of an campaign. But there has to be a good reason for it and not something like your DM introduced. If he thinks your wife's character is too good at what she is doing than he should up the DC's for finding traps, disabeling them, etc. IMO he shouldn't cripple a character like that just because he can't challenge her otherwise.

Maybe the three of you could have a talk about his reasons for implementing this new rule and try to see if you can change his mind.
Nom
06-05-05, 08:06 AM The problem I see with the logic is that if said character was pure rogue she could have 9 ranks in open locks. The penalty for multiclassing and skills is that you can max out fewer skills, not that you can't max them out. The game assumes that characters will pick a few skills to max out, not have middling to poor numbers across the board.

There are two ways to solve this "problem". Both are applicable.

(1) Scale the DCs for challenges to match the party level. Lock DCs should be set assuming that someone in the party has level+3 ranks in open locks. If they don't, then that's their problem and they'll need to find another way to open the door (knock, brute force, going around).

(2) For checks where the PCs can take 20, put some time pressure on them. If you let a skilled lock-springer fiddle with a lock for several minutes they are likely to open it eventually. But if they are trying to do this in complete silence or while the bad guys are after them it becomes a lot more exciting.

BTW: there is a reason why Open Lock DCs start at 20 for "very simple lock" (PH pg 79).
Asciiman
06-05-05, 01:23 PM Introducing house rules in the middle of the campaign is something I am LOATHE to do. I view houserules as a contract and one that shouldn't be changed without an okay by everyone involved. Infact, I have yet to introduce one that I haven't convinced my players is a good idea to have anyway.

A DM works with his players on all things, and never against them.

As to your situation, this is ridiculous. Your DM is clearly very inexperienced if he can't deal with something as piddly as this. I have DM'd levels 1 - 28 and I'll tell you something, never ever did I think that having about 9 ranks in open locks were a problem. When the wizard in my group got 55 ranks in Spellcraft and could identify any magic item ever created just by taking 10, I never ever had a problem with it.

PC's should get more powerful and nerfing them because they are too powerful should never happen. You only nerf something if it is disrupting gameplay or unbalancing in the extreme(And I don't mean one player has a decided advantage, I mean one player is more powerful then two other charcters minimum).

This DM doesn't sound very experienced, unimaginative, vindictive or just plain bad. 3 Ranks is hardly worthy of a houserule.
Flushmaster
06-05-05, 07:03 PM He just decided that the cap for multiclassed character should be 6 for the any skill that is not a class skill for both classes.

So this logic suggests that a rogue 20/fighter 1 can only have 6 ranks in open lock, while a rogue 4 can have 7?

This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign. This DM needs shot in the face with a hammer. In fact, make it a whole bag of hammers. All at once.
The Simbul
06-05-05, 11:54 PM Whats easier;

1) The Player has to re-make her entire character from level 1 in the middle of the campaign, and all of reality has to be turned on the head of a dime to explain this.
2) The DM picks up a pencil, eraser, and his pregenerated adventure notes and increases the DC of checks to open those specific locks that he doesnt want any character to easily overcome.

Call me crazy, but I imagine the logical and easiest solution would be #2. If the multiclassed Rogue character paid for her skill ranks, then she should be entitiled to use them.
Maerdash
06-06-05, 12:39 AM Introducing house rules in the middle of the campaign is something I am LOATHE to do. I view houserules as a contract and one that shouldn't be changed without an okay by everyone involved. Infact, I have yet to introduce one that I haven't convinced my players is a good idea to have anyway.

A DM works with his players on all things, and never against them.

As to your situation, this is ridiculous. Your DM is clearly very inexperienced if he can't deal with something as piddly as this. I have DM'd levels 1 - 28 and I'll tell you something, never ever did I think that having about 9 ranks in open locks were a problem. When the wizard in my group got 55 ranks in Spellcraft and could identify any magic item ever created just by taking 10, I never ever had a problem with it.

PC's should get more powerful and nerfing them because they are too powerful should never happen. You only nerf something if it is disrupting gameplay or unbalancing in the extreme(And I don't mean one player has a decided advantage, I mean one player is more powerful then two other charcters minimum).

This DM doesn't sound very experienced, unimaginative, vindictive or just plain bad. 3 Ranks is hardly worthy of a houserule.

This and The Simbuls remarks sum up my views very nicely. Yet one more dm on your side. :D
Flushmaster
06-06-05, 01:18 AM This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign.

I reiterate this.
Sir Todd
06-06-05, 08:10 AM I agree this rule is poorly thought out at best, and a prime example of bad GMing. All it does is annoy anyone who multiclasses and magnify the amount of bookwork when multiclassing. All over a few skill ranks.
amethal
06-06-05, 08:11 AM This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of.Lucky you! I've heard of plenty of dumber rules than this one. :)

I have no idea why the DM was bothered about skill ranks. Of all the things to worry about .....

Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with DMs introducing house rules part of the way through a campaign. You can't always think of everything in advance, and if some genius on these boards convinces me that a particular combination of feats, class abilities etc. is too powerful then I'm happy to outlaw it when I find out.

However, this assumes nobody has already taken said combination.

It is completely unfair to require someone to retroactively change their character sheet. Rather than do that, I'll live with the problem and make a note that I need a new house rule for the next campaign.

I doubt you'll find anybody on the boards who agrees with what your DM has done (at least on the basis of your description ;) ) and if its typical of your DMs behaviour you might want to consider finding a new DM.
Joe Khol
06-06-05, 11:22 AM However tempted I am to agree with pretty much all the previous replies, it is worth noting that you don't appear to understand how the new house rule works or exactly why your DM decided to make the change.

Maybe he has a perfectly good reason nobody has thought of. Maybe his maths on the limit of 6 ranks for this character (and thus your assumption as to how it is worked out) is wrong.

Bottom line - don't get angry, get informed. Find out from your DM exactly what he is changing and why. Only then can you complain, suggest alternatives or, just possibly, realise he is right.
Lord Schpungus
06-06-05, 11:29 AM He's not right. He's completely wrong. Go find out why he's completely wrong. Also, instead of changing rules that work so he doesn't have to, he should throw harder locks at you. It's that simple.
Thoronmir
06-06-05, 11:47 AM Changing/adopting house-rules in the middle of the campaign: To be avoided if at all possible. I’m a pretty staunch defender of DMs’ rights, but D&D is still a collaborative game. Players are entitled to know how the world works so they can plan and play accordingly. The first question a DM ought to ask himself if he suspects an imbalance in the game is “Can I address this problem by using just the RAW?” In this instance, the DM has nerfed every multi-classed character (PCs and NPCs) simply because the Rogue has been a little too successful on some Skill Checks. As has been noted, the solution under the RAW is to create situations that warrant higher DCs.
eudas
06-06-05, 05:59 PM has he looked at the DC's for Open Lock? they're already high enough, man. DC's in the 30-40's range. what a bad house rule.

eudas
JesseDennehy
06-06-05, 09:33 PM However tempted I am to agree with pretty much all the previous replies, it is worth noting that you don't appear to understand how the new house rule works or exactly why your DM decided to make the change.

Maybe he has a perfectly good reason nobody has thought of. Maybe his maths on the limit of 6 ranks for this character (and thus your assumption as to how it is worked out) is wrong.

Bottom line - don't get angry, get informed. Find out from your DM exactly what he is changing and why. Only then can you complain, suggest alternatives or, just possibly, realise he is right.

We did talk about it this weekend and he is delaying implementation. The purpose of the rule was not related to how the number of locks she picked or how she did with skills.

He does not like the logical inconsistancy of a full rogue having the same max skill cap as a multiclassed rogue/swashbuckler. He also thought the rule was done the way it is to make the math simple. I don't think he considered issues of game balance or the idea that the new rules assume a character will max out a few select skills.

I see his point in a way, a multiclassed spellcaster does not normally have the same caster level (absent certain feats). But I am not sure skills have the same effect on a game as spells. I mean everyone has skill points but not everyone can cast spells.

But it would sort of throw her whole build out the window. At seventh level it does not seem important but at later levels it would become more pronounced unless she stops multiclassing. A 20th level charcter with 23 ranks in open lock is much more effective then a 20th level character with 13 ranks.
Nom
06-06-05, 11:02 PM He does not like the logical inconsistancy of a full rogue having the same max skill cap as a multiclassed rogue/swashbuckler. He also thought the rule was done the way it is to make the math simple. I don't think he considered issues of game balance or the idea that the new rules assume a character will max out a few select skills.Yep. You're supposed to be able to max out skills. The penalty for multiclassing is that it affects the number and range of skills you max out, not the value they reach.
I see his point in a way, a multiclassed spellcaster does not normally have the same caster level (absent certain feats). But I am not sure skills have the same effect on a game as spells. I mean everyone has skill points but not everyone can cast spells.That's a good way of thinking about it. Some abilities work on character level, and some work on class level. Skills basically work on character level, and are more akin to fighter bonus feats (anyone can get feats, but fighters get more) than class abilities (spells or monk SR, for example).
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe
06-06-05, 11:27 PM This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign.

I think he gets some kind of award for being dumb enough to ask a PC to do that....why not just up the DC on the locks (or whatever he doesn't want her to overcome).

DM: Roll an Open Locks check.
RoguePC: With modifiers I rolled a......102!
DM: Sorry, you just missed it...did I mention it's a "+15 uber-lock of super spiffiness"?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JesseDennehy 06-05-05, 03:18 AM	I have a question about something a DM did in one of the campaigns I play in. The party has been playing for about a year. This week the DM introduces the following house rule that severly nerfed over my wife's character. He decided that he does not like how the max skill limit works for multiclassed characters (i.e. the rogue 3/swashbuckler 3 can have a max skill cap of 9 is open locks). He just decided that the cap for multiclassed character should be 6 for the any skill that is not a class skill for both classes. I believe his math is based on the 3 levels + 3 that gets added to the cap for all class skills. So now he wants the existing character to reallocate all the skill points she already spent. That sort of cripples the character concept she created. I would chalk it up to a heavy handed DM trying to get an overpowered character back into like, but it was a freaking Desert Kobold Rogue/Swashbulker for heavens sake. That character fit her niche well (springing traps, opening locks, bluffing, disquise and tumbling). But she was not going to replace the Chain Fighter or any other high powered builds on the Munchkins Most Wanted Table. An old copy of her character sheet (from when she was a Rogue 2/Swashbuckler 3) can be found at this link just to verify that she was not super cheesy. http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/jeffs_greyhawk/meah.html Am I crazy? Am I just biased cause this is my wife? Has anyone ever seen a house rule like that get introduced into the middle of play?
Tenzhi 06-05-05, 03:38 AM	I generally don't have a problem with introducing rules in the middle of a campaign if the DM has good reason; however, it's my opinion as a DM that that's just a bad ruling to begin with. If he has a problem with the character opening too many locks he should just use locks with higher DCs and/or put nasty traps on them.
Torack 06-05-05, 04:24 AM	I agree with Tenzhi. It sounds as if the lady in question is succeeding at too many rolls to the DM's liking. I'd attempt to strike up a casual conversation to try and find out why he introduced the sudden rule-change if it bothers you or the missus. Preferably in her company.
VerinBlod 06-05-05, 07:13 AM	I don't mind introducing houserules in the middle of an campaign. But there has to be a good reason for it and not something like your DM introduced. If he thinks your wife's character is too good at what she is doing than he should up the DC's for finding traps, disabeling them, etc. IMO he shouldn't cripple a character like that just because he can't challenge her otherwise. Maybe the three of you could have a talk about his reasons for implementing this new rule and try to see if you can change his mind.
Nom 06-05-05, 08:06 AM	The problem I see with the logic is that if said character was pure rogue she could have 9 ranks in open locks. The penalty for multiclassing and skills is that you can max out fewer skills, not that you can't max them out. The game assumes that characters will pick a few skills to max out, not have middling to poor numbers across the board. There are two ways to solve this "problem". Both are applicable. (1) Scale the DCs for challenges to match the party level. Lock DCs should be set assuming that someone in the party has level+3 ranks in open locks. If they don't, then that's their problem and they'll need to find another way to open the door (knock, brute force, going around). (2) For checks where the PCs can take 20, put some time pressure on them. If you let a skilled lock-springer fiddle with a lock for several minutes they are likely to open it eventually. But if they are trying to do this in complete silence or while the bad guys are after them it becomes a lot more exciting. BTW: there is a reason why Open Lock DCs start at 20 for "very simple lock" (PH pg 79).
Asciiman 06-05-05, 01:23 PM	Introducing house rules in the middle of the campaign is something I am LOATHE to do. I view houserules as a contract and one that shouldn't be changed without an okay by everyone involved. Infact, I have yet to introduce one that I haven't convinced my players is a good idea to have anyway. A DM works with his players on all things, and never against them. As to your situation, this is ridiculous. Your DM is clearly very inexperienced if he can't deal with something as piddly as this. I have DM'd levels 1 - 28 and I'll tell you something, never ever did I think that having about 9 ranks in open locks were a problem. When the wizard in my group got 55 ranks in Spellcraft and could identify any magic item ever created just by taking 10, I never ever had a problem with it. PC's should get more powerful and nerfing them because they are too powerful should never happen. You only nerf something if it is disrupting gameplay or unbalancing in the extreme(And I don't mean one player has a decided advantage, I mean one player is more powerful then two other charcters minimum). This DM doesn't sound very experienced, unimaginative, vindictive or just plain bad. 3 Ranks is hardly worthy of a houserule.
Flushmaster 06-05-05, 07:03 PM	He just decided that the cap for multiclassed character should be 6 for the any skill that is not a class skill for both classes. So this logic suggests that a rogue 20/fighter 1 can only have 6 ranks in open lock, while a rogue 4 can have 7? This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign. This DM needs shot in the face with a hammer. In fact, make it a whole bag of hammers. All at once.
The Simbul 06-05-05, 11:54 PM	Whats easier; 1) The Player has to re-make her entire character from level 1 in the middle of the campaign, and all of reality has to be turned on the head of a dime to explain this. 2) The DM picks up a pencil, eraser, and his pregenerated adventure notes and increases the DC of checks to open those specific locks that he doesnt want any character to easily overcome. Call me crazy, but I imagine the logical and easiest solution would be #2. If the multiclassed Rogue character paid for her skill ranks, then she should be entitiled to use them.
Maerdash 06-06-05, 12:39 AM	Introducing house rules in the middle of the campaign is something I am LOATHE to do. I view houserules as a contract and one that shouldn't be changed without an okay by everyone involved. Infact, I have yet to introduce one that I haven't convinced my players is a good idea to have anyway. A DM works with his players on all things, and never against them. As to your situation, this is ridiculous. Your DM is clearly very inexperienced if he can't deal with something as piddly as this. I have DM'd levels 1 - 28 and I'll tell you something, never ever did I think that having about 9 ranks in open locks were a problem. When the wizard in my group got 55 ranks in Spellcraft and could identify any magic item ever created just by taking 10, I never ever had a problem with it. PC's should get more powerful and nerfing them because they are too powerful should never happen. You only nerf something if it is disrupting gameplay or unbalancing in the extreme(And I don't mean one player has a decided advantage, I mean one player is more powerful then two other charcters minimum). This DM doesn't sound very experienced, unimaginative, vindictive or just plain bad. 3 Ranks is hardly worthy of a houserule. This and The Simbuls remarks sum up my views very nicely. Yet one more dm on your side. :D
Flushmaster 06-06-05, 01:18 AM	This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign. I reiterate this.
Sir Todd 06-06-05, 08:10 AM	I agree this rule is poorly thought out at best, and a prime example of bad GMing. All it does is annoy anyone who multiclasses and magnify the amount of bookwork when multiclassing. All over a few skill ranks.
amethal 06-06-05, 08:11 AM	This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of.Lucky you! I've heard of plenty of dumber rules than this one. :) I have no idea why the DM was bothered about skill ranks. Of all the things to worry about ..... Anyway, I'm perfectly happy with DMs introducing house rules part of the way through a campaign. You can't always think of everything in advance, and if some genius on these boards convinces me that a particular combination of feats, class abilities etc. is too powerful then I'm happy to outlaw it when I find out. However, this assumes nobody has already taken said combination. It is completely unfair to require someone to retroactively change their character sheet. Rather than do that, I'll live with the problem and make a note that I need a new house rule for the next campaign. I doubt you'll find anybody on the boards who agrees with what your DM has done (at least on the basis of your description ;) ) and if its typical of your DMs behaviour you might want to consider finding a new DM.
Joe Khol 06-06-05, 11:22 AM	However tempted I am to agree with pretty much all the previous replies, it is worth noting that you don't appear to understand how the new house rule works or exactly why your DM decided to make the change. Maybe he has a perfectly good reason nobody has thought of. Maybe his maths on the limit of 6 ranks for this character (and thus your assumption as to how it is worked out) is wrong. Bottom line - don't get angry, get informed. Find out from your DM exactly what he is changing and why. Only then can you complain, suggest alternatives or, just possibly, realise he is right.
Lord Schpungus 06-06-05, 11:29 AM	He's not right. He's completely wrong. Go find out why he's completely wrong. Also, instead of changing rules that work so he doesn't have to, he should throw harder locks at you. It's that simple.
Thoronmir 06-06-05, 11:47 AM	Changing/adopting house-rules in the middle of the campaign: To be avoided if at all possible. I’m a pretty staunch defender of DMs’ rights, but D&D is still a collaborative game. Players are entitled to know how the world works so they can plan and play accordingly. The first question a DM ought to ask himself if he suspects an imbalance in the game is “Can I address this problem by using just the RAW?” In this instance, the DM has nerfed every multi-classed character (PCs and NPCs) simply because the Rogue has been a little too successful on some Skill Checks. As has been noted, the solution under the RAW is to create situations that warrant higher DCs.
eudas 06-06-05, 05:59 PM	has he looked at the DC's for Open Lock? they're already high enough, man. DC's in the 30-40's range. what a bad house rule. eudas
JesseDennehy 06-06-05, 09:33 PM	However tempted I am to agree with pretty much all the previous replies, it is worth noting that you don't appear to understand how the new house rule works or exactly why your DM decided to make the change. Maybe he has a perfectly good reason nobody has thought of. Maybe his maths on the limit of 6 ranks for this character (and thus your assumption as to how it is worked out) is wrong. Bottom line - don't get angry, get informed. Find out from your DM exactly what he is changing and why. Only then can you complain, suggest alternatives or, just possibly, realise he is right. We did talk about it this weekend and he is delaying implementation. The purpose of the rule was not related to how the number of locks she picked or how she did with skills. He does not like the logical inconsistancy of a full rogue having the same max skill cap as a multiclassed rogue/swashbuckler. He also thought the rule was done the way it is to make the math simple. I don't think he considered issues of game balance or the idea that the new rules assume a character will max out a few select skills. I see his point in a way, a multiclassed spellcaster does not normally have the same caster level (absent certain feats). But I am not sure skills have the same effect on a game as spells. I mean everyone has skill points but not everyone can cast spells. But it would sort of throw her whole build out the window. At seventh level it does not seem important but at later levels it would become more pronounced unless she stops multiclassing. A 20th level charcter with 23 ranks in open lock is much more effective then a 20th level character with 13 ranks.
Nom 06-06-05, 11:02 PM	He does not like the logical inconsistancy of a full rogue having the same max skill cap as a multiclassed rogue/swashbuckler. He also thought the rule was done the way it is to make the math simple. I don't think he considered issues of game balance or the idea that the new rules assume a character will max out a few select skills.Yep. You're supposed to be able to max out skills. The penalty for multiclassing is that it affects the number and range of skills you max out, not the value they reach. I see his point in a way, a multiclassed spellcaster does not normally have the same caster level (absent certain feats). But I am not sure skills have the same effect on a game as spells. I mean everyone has skill points but not everyone can cast spells.That's a good way of thinking about it. Some abilities work on character level, and some work on class level. Skills basically work on character level, and are more akin to fighter bonus feats (anyone can get feats, but fighters get more) than class abilities (spells or monk SR, for example).
TheErsatzFacsimileOfMe 06-06-05, 11:27 PM	This is the dumbest rule I've ever heard of, and even worse if it's being sprung on a single character halfway through a campaign. I think he gets some kind of award for being dumb enough to ask a PC to do that....why not just up the DC on the locks (or whatever he doesn't want her to overcome). DM: Roll an Open Locks check. RoguePC: With modifiers I rolled a......102! DM: Sorry, you just missed it...did I mention it's a "+15 uber-lock of super spiffiness"?