What are some really bad houserules? Houserules that are so bad that just one or two of them is just too much? Houserules that you've actually seen used?
The worst one I've seen is saving throws for getting hit. After a creature was hit, they'd be able to make a saving throw. If they could roll their defense (minus 10) or lower for the defense they had been hit against, they weren't actually hit. Stupidest rule ever. Slowed things down a bunch and was overpowered for creatures that already had good defenses. I'm not sure how it would work in later tiers where defenses are 30+, but fortunately we talked the DM out of it after 1 encounter.
What makes it even worse is that many of the DMs that run this rule don't realize it's a house-rule. They stand convinced that it's in the book somewhere.
Rules like that miss a fundamental characteristic of RPG's which is that the players are going to make, and be the target of, far more attacks than any single monster. The random orc you instasplatter does not make up for having a high level PC get instakilled.
It's also extremely unsatisfying to have the BBEG roll a 1 and kill himself.
I know one guy who gives XP penalties for talking out of character, that's pretty BS.
I definitely agree with Novacat. Though I'd expand that to say that any variant of a critical fumble rule (aside from the default "that attack is a miss no matter what, move on") is really crappy. The inverse "two 20's in a row=instant kill" rule is also really crappy.
Rules like that miss a fundamental characteristic of RPG's which is that the players are going to make, and be the target of, far more attacks than any single monster. The random orc you instasplatter does not make up for having a high level PC get instakilled.
It's also extremely unsatisfying to have the BBEG roll a 1 and kill himself.
I know one guy who gives XP penalties for talking out of character, that's pretty BS.
Yeah, in general all kinds of critical hit rules are troublesome.
Some players like to involve more "luck" element in the game, but they don't realize it is penalizing the players way more than the opposition.
The only real fumble rule that I could live with is that you grant combat advantage if the first roll of your attack power is a "1". This is not a total loss, but adds a bit of excitement.
Still, even that is probably too much, since it will be forgotten many times over.
DMs letting the artificer build guns in an FR campaign.
Letting Same Artificer build the bloody true strike spell into his "combat frame" that didn't even take up an armor slot.
Increasing the critical miss range from 1 to 1-4 only on the accurate characters who had SPENT FEATS AND GOLD TO GET ACCURACY AND SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR BEING GOOD!
DMs letting the artificer build guns in an FR campaign.
I'm actually not sure what's wrong with this one.
C'mon, we're drinking beer and eating greasy pizza -- my bladder and colon aren't at your mercy!
Basically, action points didn't grant extra actions, rather, they were bonus dice that could be applied to any attack roll and scaled up in both number and amount as we leveled up. Alternatively, they could be used to reroll any check or attack. At 1st level, an action point was a d6 and we had three of them. At 12th level, it was 4d6 and we had eight. Being able to add a possible +24 to any hit roll, damage roll, skill check or saving throw, or reroll a natural one or failed death save, and you basically removed all possibility of challenge or excitement from the game. The unoptimized players in the group were instantly optimized, and I'm not exagerating when I say the optimized players were basically gods.
A lesser offense, but still rather egregrious, was that if you wanted to make a skill check, you had to be trained in the skill, with no exceptions. Which meant that only the ranger in the party knew anything about the capabilities of wolves and bears, and nobody had any idea how to go about asking townsfolk about local rumors, legends, or even directions to the nearest tavern.
Unless an action point is spent, 1st level at-will powers may only be used a number of times per encounter equal to the ability modifier of the ability score which governs it.
If the governing ability score's modifier is negative, the power may only be used by spending an action point.
Originally, that's all there was to this one, but someone pointed out I needed the following.
If more than one ability score can be used to perform the power, the greater of the ability modifiers for those ability scores is used as the number of times per encounter the power may be used.
If no ability score is used to perform the power, the ability modifier of the greatest Key Ability is used as the governing ability score.
~~~~~
There's nothing quite like scaring your meta/power-gamers into submission.
Looking at someone else's character sheet, asking someone else for any value on their character sheet, or telling others of values from your character sheet will cause permanent penalties to your character.
~~~~~
This one is aimed more at the bossies or know-it-alls who can't help but tell others what they should be doing.
Let others play their characters the way they like or your character will suffer permanent penalties.
~~~~~
I think I may be the most tyrranical DM I know. [weaseling rationalization] [straw man] [pithy counter-argument] [expletive-rich rant] [rabid-squirrel glare] [apology]
Most tyrannical? More like just ridiculously crazy. What in the world is your issue with at wills? Why jack the system by making at wills limited use? I mean honestly, I'd like to know because thats just bogus.
As for your whole bit against people who look at other sheets, share stats, I think thats going too far but they're your players. Curious as to why you feel its necessary to penalize people for discuss characters. I mean me and my group share stats and all all the time just because. Sure a couple people sometimes try to out do others, but mostly its maybe to find out why a character isn't doing as well as they should, like with one of our people and their sorcerer that wasn't dishing out the damage quite like he should.
I mean I guess its your deal, but the last two rules just seem like things that need to be discussed with the group, not rules that'll penalize their characters. Sheesh I agree with FaustianPengiun I wouldn't want to play with you at all with those rules, well mostly the 1st but yeah yikes.
We do the whole "Action point to reroll attack rolls" but they don't really use it for that very often. A crit fail is still a crit fail, they can't reroll that. I remember one time though, the elf in the party rolled bad, then used his elvish reroll and rolled worse, then used his action point and rolled even worse than before. I don't think he crit failed but that would have been even more hillarious.
Perhaps the most fun house rule we have is the Crit Dice. one of the guys bought a d12 that instead of numbers, had various body parts. Each body part carries an extra bit of damage or status effect when rolled. If they make roll a 20, they roll the crit dice against the enemies, if they roll a 1 they roll the crit dice against themselves {if melee, ranged they roll a d8 and count out the squares, then attack in that direction}
I'm also in the process of houserulling some mount rules, mainly cause i don't like how they stay the same over time. I'm thinking they can be as high as character level - 3 so they cap at lv. 27. I'm mainly doing this because there's going to be some heavy mounted combat stuff coming up in the campaign and they did a butt load of work to get these special mounts they just got. I'd for an ancient red to kill them in one hit or something.
The other two are things I could just discuss with my group, I agree. I don't want them sharing numbers or pressuring others into actions. However, I don't want them to have the option of saying no; so, I'm making them house rules. It's more clear cut than the rationalizing I have heard some players get away with in other adventures I have been in.
PC: "I have a +8 in Heal, so I go over to..."
DM: "Yes, but, do that in character."
The game can survive--and in fact benefit from--people not announcing their numbers. The obvious exception is to let the DM know totals for attack rolls and checks, but just totals. Players also need to share numerical buffs and healing values with each other. So, you see, I realize there is a certain amount of treating the game as a game which cannot be avoided, but I want to minimalize these instances not condone number crunching and comparison. If you think your character should be able to tell how talented another character is because of their ability scores, think again. That assumption your character makes needs to be based on the way the other character looks and behaves, the result and efficacy of the other character's actions, and/or the things the other character says. Anything else is metagaming--using your knowledge of a character sheet to color your character's knowledge and actions.
For example, if an ally has a +15 in Arcana, but rolls a 2, in-game your character may believe this ally is a novice or forgetful or not really what she or he says they are or unlucky or... you get the picture. Failure can cast doubts and so on and so forth. Raving success can impress or incite fear or yadda yadda yadda.