1: High-powered roll method
2: Nothing for the characters that isn't in the PHB!
3: Players forced to do what is best for the party, even if contrary to the RP.
Fumbles. Always fumbles.
QFT
Allowing gods to possess your PC if the DM decides you aren't doing something the way he wants. (Same DM as above)
Allowing RW deities. Recipe for disaster no matter how nice you're trying to be to the Christian Fundamentalist who has decided on her own that as God's only representative on Abeir-Toril, God would let her achieve any effect she wanted at insanely powerful levels. (She didn't tell us anything about this. I was willing to work with existing spells, but not anything invoking Armageddon at 1st level. This houserule got yanked immediately.)
); whole new weapons lists and properties (that's just mundane); skills don't work the way their described (no, it's the way HE imagines -- all of them).And then there's the setting
thankfully it's only the "side" campaign; the main one is pretty kick-a**
The dice are irrelevant. If I say you missed, you missed. (My brother as DM)
Allowing gods to possess your PC if the DM decides you aren't doing something the way he wants. (Same DM as above)
Allowing RW deities. Recipe for disaster no matter how nice you're trying to be to the Christian Fundamentalist who has decided on her own that as God's only representative on Abeir-Toril, God would let her achieve any effect she wanted at insanely powerful levels. (She didn't tell us anything about this. I was willing to work with existing spells, but not anything invoking Armageddon at 1st level. This houserule got yanked immediately.)
I feel for you, I am a christian, but at the same time I have no more compunction about having my dwarf fighter scream out glory to Mordian before wacking off a orc's head than I do pretending I'm a dwarf or a fighter or that I just whacked off a thinking beings head.
How abut DM's that have a houserule for EVERYTHING (no, I literally mean everything) -- it basically amounts to a hodgepodge of every rpg to ever come out in the past 30+ years. Alterations for every class/race; magic alterations depending on race/class/level; charts galore (thanks rolemaster
And then there's the setting
thankfully it's only the "side" campaign; the main one is pretty kick-a**
QFT.
The 'Wanna-Be' game designer GM can be a player's worst nightmare. "No, trust me, it'll work better my way...."
Worst single home-rule: [your best class feature] doesn't work the way you think it does! Example: One GM would only allow sneak attack damage to be added if the base weapon damage beat the target's DR. Guess how often that happened?
I convinced him to change this back to RAW, treating it as part of the base attack, after which we met constructs, plants, undead, oozes and everything else immune to sneak attack on a regular basis. Blur and obscuring mist spells were quite common, as well.
This is one of the reasons my current group enjoys 4th ed: the rogue doesn't have a huge fist-full of sneak attack dice, and the GM can't/doesn't feel the urge to 'nerf' sneak attack constantly.
PtM
QFT.
The 'Wanna-Be' game designer GM can be a player's worst nightmare. "No, trust me, it'll work better my way...."
Worst single home-rule: [your best class feature] doesn't work the way you think it does! Example: One GM would only allow sneak attack damage to be added if the base weapon damage beat the target's DR. Guess how often that happened?
I convinced him to change this back to RAW, treating it as part of the base attack, after which we met constructs, plants, undead, oozes and everything else immune to sneak attack on a regular basis. Blur and obscuring mist spells were quite common, as well.
This is one of the reasons my current group enjoys 4th ed: the rogue doesn't have a huge fist-full of sneak attack dice, and the GM can't/doesn't feel the urge to 'nerf' sneak attack constantly.
PtM
DR? How about natural armor? yeah, that's right -- no damage unless the weapon's base damage exceeded the creatures natural-armor bonus (I stopped using my kukris immediately thereafter).
The 'Wanna-Be' game designer GM can be a player's worst nightmare. "No, trust me, it'll work better my way...."
It can also work out well I think. Maybe I just say that because I love doing things homebrew-style, but so far the folks in the [3.5]game I've been running have seemed to been happy with content I've added. The custom classes have gotten positive feedback, and I'm doing something with action points that seems to work well.
I admit, that particular rule you quoted was beyond retarded but DM-designed stuff is hardly all like that.
That aside. My least favorite rule: 20 on a Crit confirmation roll = Instant Death, No Save. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm just waiting for the day a house cat instantly rips my head off because I stepped in its litterbox.
EDIT: (I'm curious)
This is one of the reasons my current group enjoys 4th ed: the rogue doesn't have a huge fist-full of sneak attack dice, and the GM can't/doesn't feel the urge to 'nerf' sneak attack constantly.
Why in the world would someone think a handful of physical-damage d6s on an attack action needs nerfing?
DR? How about natural armor? yeah, that's right -- no damage unless the weapon's base damage exceeded the creatures natural-armor bonus (I stopped using my kukris immediately thereafter).
oh, I almost forgot -- there were also size modifiers in place (i.e., if the creature is larger than you, its natural armor is more effective against your damage).
I cant use a power that pushes, pulls, or slides something that is larger than me, and instead of me pushing, pulling or sliding the monster gets to move me around like a toy...
or how about this,
if I can knock someone prone with say footwork lure, or sweeping stike (it could happen) I cant if it has more than 2 legs, it is one size or more larger than me, it can fly, or it has a burrow speed, or if it is something like a snake, or a cube.
if I am a battlerager build I can only get the TEMP HP from my at-will once per encounter, and my battlerager TEMP HP does not stack, OOHHH and I only get my Temp HP when hit the first time I'm hit the encounter not every time.
I gave up on that campaign shortly after the second game when the DM said He needed to balance my character.
The DM considers "HP" to include chances to be missed, etc, and eliminates AC, adding it to HP totals.
THat was a short and terrible campaign.
DM replies, "The Fire Giants were resistant to cold damage! Oh but they are now vulnerable to fire damage to 'balance' it out."
This was in 3.x since fire giants no longer have any vulnerables
.It can also work out well I think. Maybe I just say that because I love doing things homebrew-style, but so far the folks in the [3.5]game I've been running have seemed to been happy with content I've added. The custom classes have gotten positive feedback, and I'm doing something with action points that seems to work well.
I admit, that particular rule you quoted was beyond retarded but DM-designed stuff is hardly all like that.
And taht's the difference between some who is good at it and someone who thinks he is good at it. I homebrew quite a lot myself. When I've crafted a real winner of a houserule, I can tell by the way they keep using the rule or referring to it, even if it's not something that gives them any kind of advantage. But when I miss, the guys have no compunctions about letting me know I've missed! (Curious what you're doing with the APs...)
Mobar2008 Thanks. The whole reason we allowed the Almighty to do a cameo was because she wanted to be part of the fun, but was very serious about references to other gods, even make-believe ones. She didn't mind if others did, but she always saw herself as a figurative holy warrior, so the cleric was her class of choice. It was a good fit, too, until the whole "calling on God to smite the enemy" thing. She really thought she should have been allowed to have them all drop dead instantly! Not at level 1, and certainly NOT against a humanoid army of over 1000. (They were trying to sabotage the seige engines.)
. But when I miss, the guys have no compunctions about letting me know I've missed! (Curious what you're doing with the APs...)
Just to clarify again, it's a 3.5 game. Not a 4.0 game.
I like action points, but dislike that they're a concrete resource tied to character level. Concrete resources always seem to either wide about being held too conservatively, and thrown about "Nova" style.
Instead, I simply grant every player 1 action point at the start of every game session. If they don't use, they just have 1 at the start of the next session. Since we have a fairly consistent rate of challenges/session they provide a very predictable benefit without hording or nova-ing.
I also added some new uses such as suppressing or ending on going effects, and negating a critical threat on part of an enemy.
Finally, I also sometimes reward Extra action points if the group just plain does something that impresses me. Or as compensation if I say, have to cancel a game due unforeseen events. These extras, unlike the ones automatically granted stick around until used. This another advantage where I know there is a moderately rare occurrence (a player having more than 1 action point in a given a session) that is a result of something really worth rewarding/compensating for. Thus I can add particularly powerful affects associated with spending two action points once.
EDIT: I admit, this leaves them with less action points overall. However as we're not playing in Eberron or under any other ruleset(other than my own) that might otherwise provide action points, even in a more limited form they're purely an addition from the player's perspective.
Your hit points are divided among your various body parts. When you get hit, a body location is determined. If taken enough damage, you lose the body part.
As you get closer to 0 hit points, you start taking penalties to rolls at 1/2 hit points, 1/3 hit points, 1/4 hit points. The closer to 0, the bigger the penalty.
Magical healing does not exist whatsoever.
Players are not told how much damage they have taken because characters do not know about "hit points".
These: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1196959
Low powered point buy.
Your hit points are divided among your various body parts. When you get hit, a body location is determined. If taken enough damage, you lose the body part.
As you get closer to 0 hit points, you start taking penalties to rolls at 1/2 hit points, 1/3 hit points, 1/4 hit points. The closer to 0, the bigger the penalty.
Magical healing does not exist whatsoever.
Players are not told how much damage they have taken because characters do not know about "hit points".
These: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1196959
That's when it's time to break out the hammer-gun.
Players are not told how much damage they have taken because characters do not know about "hit points".
This is one of the dumbest positions I've seen people take when it comes to RPGs. And it's not just confined to D&D.
The whole point of "hit points" is so you know how healthy your character is. After all there is a huge difference between 1 HP left and 100 HP left. The difference is kinda like your bleeding to death and if a grain of sand hits you you'll fall over dead vs you have a few bumps and bruises. Now I think that the characters can tell the difference just like in real fight you would know if your simply a little banged up vs near death.
I have no more compunction about having my dwarf fighter scream out glory to Mordian before wacking off…
Ewwwwwwww!
;)
Big Tony
And taht's the difference between some who is good at it and someone who thinks he is good at it. I homebrew quite a lot myself. When I've crafted a real winner of a houserule, I can tell by the way they keep using the rule or referring to it, even if it's not something that gives them any kind of advantage. But when I miss, the guys have no compunctions about letting me know I've missed! (Curious what you're doing with the APs...)
Mobar2008 Thanks. The whole reason we allowed the Almighty to do a cameo was because she wanted to be part of the fun, but was very serious about references to other gods, even make-believe ones. She didn't mind if others did, but she always saw herself as a figurative holy warrior, so the cleric was her class of choice. It was a good fit, too, until the whole "calling on God to smite the enemy" thing. She really thought she should have been allowed to have them all drop dead instantly! Not at level 1, and certainly NOT against a humanoid army of over 1000. (They were trying to sabotage the seige engines.)
Yeah, I just don't understand why some people have no problem pretending they are breaking heads, but completely freak when they have to choose a fictional god for their fictional character.
Ewwwwwwww!
;)
That my freind is rude, crude and socially unacceptable. :P (yet surprisingly funny)
-Unreasonable magic marts
-Rampant wild magic locales (they thought the chart would spice things up)
-No $, no healing magic, hunted refugees @ 1st lvl, post-apocalyptic setting.
Why in the world would someone think a handful of physical-damage d6s on an attack action needs nerfing?
Depends on how many is 'a handful' and how often.
Ewwwwwwww!
;)
well, there would be a "think being's head" involved :D
okay, I'm done with that.
well, there would be a "think being's head" involved :D
okay, I'm done with that.
Yes...please be done with it! :P
I.E., the players come up with a clever way to break into an imperial bunker in a star wars game using explosives, instead of the GMs intended method of fighting through the storm troopers at the front gate. GMs reply? "no you don't."
not arbitrary failure, not ridiculous penalties, no, these are the railroading techniques of *lesser men*. This GM literally tells the players that their characters will not do something the players want them to. Players see through the poorly disguised assassin NPC the DM has in their midst? No, you think he's your friend. "no we don't, he just killed the barkeep for no reason with a poisoned dagger; he's clearly an assassin, we attack him." No you don't, you think he's your friend, why would you? "fine, bluff vs. sense motive. ha! he rolls a 1!" too bad, you still think he's your friend.
It's like Tic-tac-toe, or maybe Global Thermonuclear War. The only winning move is not to play.
It's like Tic-tac-toe, The only winning move is not to play.
But it's impossible to not have the "X" player win tic-tac-toe (unless he's dumb as a post or 7), unless you mean the DM is the X, in which case I agree.....
All these posts sure make me glad I play with mature adults though (not even that old, we're 20-26).
Bullrushing an enemy over a cliff, into a pit, etc automatically sends the PC along with it, no exceptions. The only roll you get is a high Athletics roll to determine if you fall the way down. No bullrushing anything larger then you, some what dependent on your Str though.
Only clerics of your god can resurrect you, other gods wouldn't want to help resurrect non-followers since gods compete for worshippers.
Stealth doesn't affect things like your scent, so various creatures known for good scent can detect you regardless (or at least your approximate location). Doing anything to hide your scent breaks your stealth.
EDIT: (I'm curious)
Why in the world would someone think a handful of physical-damage d6s on an attack action needs nerfing?
Mid-level rogue with two-weapon fighting, inflicting +5d6 sneak attacks three times per round. Or an epic level rogue w/10d6 (or more!) of sneak attack and Lingering Strike.
It can get ugly.
PtM
Yes...please be done with it! :P
:embarrass sorry.
Stealth doesn't affect things like your scent, so various creatures known for good scent can detect you regardless (or at least your approximate location). Doing anything to hide your scent breaks your stealth.
that actually makes sense (unless there is some context I'm missing).
Mid-level rogue with two-weapon fighting, inflicting +5d6 sneak attacks three times per round. Or an epic level rogue w/10d6 (or more!) of sneak attack and Lingering Strike.
It can get ugly.
PtM
ok, a mid-lvl rogue w/2wf is gonna miss most of those 3rd-attacks, so he's averaging the equivalent damage of a fireball -- I don't see the problem.
From my experience, once the party goes EPIC, all bets are off -- just throw the rule book out the window, and "wing it"; and nobody needs to get upset if things end-up falling off the rails.
But it's impossible to not have the "X" player win tic-tac-toe (unless he's dumb as a post or 7), unless you mean the DM is the X, in which case I agree.....
All these posts sure make me glad I play with mature adults though (not even that old, we're 20-26).
Actually, assuming the X player plays the center and the O player plays a corner, it will always be a draw. Even if one is not aware of this mechanic, they still appear as optimal choices and will almost always be taken. The only way for one player to win Tic-tac-toe is for the other to make a dumb mistake.
As for crazy house rules
Had one in second edition where the DM essentially ruled 'all weapons are vorpal.' So if you crit something that has a head and needs its head, that something is dead. If you have a blade the head is lopped off, if you have a blunt instrument the head is bashed in.
I actually considered giving a try to the 'players don't know how many hit points they have' house-rule once, based on roughly the same reasoning. However, instead of hiding their health entirely I was planning on giving players an approximate percentage of their current health, so a player with 50 total HPs and 5 current HPs is "under 20%" or perhaps "near 10%".
It was for a horror game and I wanted to increase the suspense, feeling that characters would know roughly how injured they are but not have a numeric to assign to their condition. The game never got off the ground though (mainly due to player reluctance; surprisingly less about any of the house rules and more because one of my players absolutely refused to play in a horror game) so I never got to see how well it would have actually played out.
He really shouldn'a let me get away with that
Wound System: Well, my DM didn't like the rules for healing surges (none of use really did), so he tried to implement a system where each hit that does over a certain amount of damage get to make an extra roll for what kind of wounds you receive. This lowered how much our healing surges worked, but also could make us immobilized, unable to attack, or just dead (...) Since then we just kept the healing surge system since "fixing" it never seemed to work for us.
Actually, that's not a house rule, at the core. The Wound System was the 3.0/3.5 version of the old Advanced Crit system in 2.0. I think it's in Combat and Tactics.
Low Magic games where "Low Magic" means "Low Magic for the PCs and you don't get inherent bonuses to attack rolls or AC or non-magical superior materials to make up for it, whereas all NPCs get full use of their magical abilities"
DMs that state ________ must be played in this way (whether it's an alignment, a class, or a race) I once had a DM tell me that my Evil character was being too nice when he didn't rob and kill the party in their sleep. I responded with "My character's evil, not a moron. We're in the middle of a desert filled with voracious undead horrors-I'm going to take the assistance of anyone I can."
There is, however, a game out there with a fumble rule that says when you throw a 1 on an attack, you roll for damage normally and inflict that much on yourself. Yyyyeah. Threw that rule out the window in a heartbeat.
Actually, that's not a house rule, at the core. The Wound System was the 3.0/3.5 version of the old Advanced Crit system in 2.0. I think it's in Combat and Tactics.
Actually it is a houserule, because I've never heard of that, and it's not in any official 4e book that the DM knew of.
Now that's the worst Rule of the House. I don't blame the person whose house we're playing in, usually the DM. He's forced to make the rule, but darn it, when we finally kill the BBEG after a tough battle, I want to cheer!
Actually it is a houserule, because I've never heard of that, and it's not in any official 4e book that the DM knew of.
:D That's because real men play 3.5e:D , because "fair" is for the weak.
ok, a mid-lvl rogue w/2wf is gonna miss most of those 3rd-attacks, so he's averaging the equivalent damage of a fireball -- I don't see the problem.
Especially when half the creature types in 3rd were immune to sneak attack, and a lousy 1st level obscurement spell would negate Sneak Attack as well, and in the meantime the wizard and cleric are going 'you, roll an 18 or better on a 20 or you just die'.
As far as bad houserules go, I heard about a set from someone who apparently decided racial stereotypes needed mechanical backing.
Since elves were a 'wise, elder race', you had to make a wisdom check when one of them told you anything, or you'd believe it, even if there were obvious physical evidence to the contrary. If an elf told you the sky was red, and you failed the check, you would then believe there was something wrong with your eyes.
Halflings had to make will checks every month away from home, or they would immediately run home because they were 'homesick'.
Dwarves had to make will checks in the presence of alcohol, or ... well, you know.
As far as bad houserules go, I heard about a set from someone who apparently decided racial stereotypes needed mechanical backing.
Since elves were a 'wise, elder race', you had to make a wisdom check when one of them told you anything, or you'd believe it, even if there were obvious physical evidence to the contrary. If an elf told you the sky was red, and you failed the check, you would then believe there was something wrong with your eyes.
Halflings had to make will checks every month away from home, or they would immediately run home because they were 'homesick'.
Dwarves had to make will checks in the presence of alcohol, or ... well, you know.
Oh…my…God…
The DM houseruled that since Females were the weaker sex they should have a - 2 to strength, no plus's, the supposed payoff for this was their ability to have babies.
This was in 3.x since fire giants no longer have any vulnerables
Everything's got vulnerables.
At least, everything Male. :D
that actually makes sense (unless there is some context I'm missing).
ok, a mid-lvl rogue w/2wf is gonna miss most of those 3rd-attacks, so he's averaging the equivalent damage of a fireball -- I don't see the problem.
Can you say Flat-Footed???
They all hit. Then came Unearthed Arcana, and the Fighter option that let you swap out the fighter bonus feats for the rogue sneak attack class feature. Fighter attack bonus plus rogue sneak attack equals "Death Machine." Then I took the Master Thrower prestige class and became "Mobile Artillery."
PtM
:D That's because real men play 3.5e:D , because "fair" is for the weak.
I can't say I've heard that rule for 3.5 either, which I still play.
How abut DM's that have a houserule for EVERYTHING (no, I literally mean everything) -- it basically amounts to a hodgepodge of every rpg to ever come out in the past 30+ years. Alterations for every class/race; magic alterations depending on race/class/level; charts galore (thanks rolemaster
And then there's the setting
thankfully it's only the "side" campaign; the main one is pretty kick-a**
Wow, its like we are playing with the same DM.
3.5 game masively houserulled
All players start with 1-2 pieces of mundane equipment costing 100 gp or less.
Magic items extremly rare (including wands, scrolls, potions etc.)
Crafting magic items is esentilay right out becuase materiels are either virtualy unaffordable or unaviable.
Every hit that dm determines does "a lot of damagee" cause him to roll for hit severity and hit location. Depending on location and severity chareter will sustain "realistic injury" (such as broken ribs, punctured lung, fractured skull, massive internal bleeding etc.) with signficant mechincal penality and or instantly dying regardless of reamaning HP.
Wounds are permanent until healed by several days of complete bed rest or using up healing spells. For example a broken bone might requite cure moderate while massive internal bleeding might require cure critical. A spell used to cure an injury does not heal any hp. In other words if your buddy has lost 70 hp and has a lethal wound you must burn a high level cure to heal the wound then spend more spells to get the hp back.
Only clerics of the pacifist lawful good healing god (who will lose all class ablities if they engage in violence), can spontanously cast healing spells. Other clerics can spontanously cast from one of thier domains. As no one wants to follow the strictures of the healing good (considering how many things in the setting are trying to kill us and destroy the world), the party has no acess to spontanous healing. Also clerics must find all thier non-domain spells like a wizard, and tend to get spells that fit into the porfilo of thier gods. So if you are not a follower of the healing god you do not start out with healing spells. Thus thanks to the wound system (and liberal use of ablitly drain and deseases) the party has increased need for healing spells and gets much less of them (no wands of cure light wounds for you).
Auto critical fumble on a rolled 1
Facing rules. Yes an enemy that is making no attempt to hide or move silently, has no concelment, and whom you are aware of can flank you by himself if the DM decides that you charecter is looking the other way.
When making a spot checks you must declare the specfic direction where you are looking, if the hidden enemy is not in the direction you will not find them regardless of what you roll or how low thier hide check was. Yes after declaring you make a spot check into a small room and rolling a 30, you can be ambushed by something that rolled a 5 on its hide check becuase the DM decided you did not look at the place it was hiding.
Creatures that attack you at range while hiding stay hidden until sucesfuly spoted. Provided you roll high enough and pick the right direction to look.
Search checks take 10 minutes per small area searched (which part of the wall would you like to search). If you only do a quick search check you take massive penalities.
Skill are more specilized and more skills added. For instance knowledge religion only covers one religion, knoledge history only covers one nation, knowledge geography covers one region etc. New skills include Knowledge angels, demons, devils, undead, goblinoids, orcs, the elemental plan of fire, the elmental plan of air, etc.
Lots of other small tweaks which collide with the other houserules and cause cascading unintended effects througout the system, causing the DM to make yet more houserules. Rinse, lather, reapeat.
This is one that I have never had the horror to experience myself but I did read about on here ages ago.
The DM houseruled that since Females were the weaker sex they should have a - 2 to strength, no plus's, the supposed payoff for this was their ability to have babies.
had a dm that had the option of females = -2 str, +2 wis, +1 on all dex- and cha-based checks (except intimidate).
Creatures that attack you at range while hiding stay hidden until sucesfuly spoted. Provided you roll high enough and pick the right direction to look.
That's actually possible within the rules, making use of the sniping options. However, doing so requires you take a move action to Hide - and I suspect, based on the rest of the rules here, that your DM didn't actually play it right.
Back in the Dark Ages of 2nd edition, I ran a campaign which was 100% By-the-Book, NO-House-Rules-And-I-Mean-It!
The players were completely lost! They all 'knew' the way the game was played, but they hadn't ever learned from the rulebook -- they'd learned from other players, and most of what they'd learned was house rules! The situation had gotten so bad that nobody even knew what the 'official' rules were, even though they'd been playing for years. And now the guy (me) with the ludicrous idea of actually using the rulebooks was some kind of heretic. Hell, everybody knew you just can't do that!
After they got done freaking out, it became apparent the official rules didn't totally suck, and it was actually possible to run a good campaign with them! Who would have thought??? The game ran weekly for something over a year, we completed the campaign, and everyone involved had a good time doing it.
PtM
That's actually possible within the rules, making use of the sniping options. However, doing so requires you take a move action to Hide - and I suspect, based on the rest of the rules here, that your DM didn't actually play it right.
Sniping also requires you to take a big negative to your hide check, which the DM does not follow.
The thing about making rules is that you need to understand how the existing rules work and how the changes will effect other rules. My friend is great at storytelling and roleplaying but has no concept of game design and his house ruling is akin to doing surgery using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel.
In my 4E game I have exactly 1 house rule and that is that if a player is going be brought under zero hp by ongoing damage at the beginning of their turn they get a chance to prevent this. They can either use their standard action to use their second wind healing themselves before taking the ongoing damage or they can spend an action point to take another action. I instituted this rule because the we decided it just feels cheap to have your turn come around and then you fall to the ground dying before you can do anything.
Sometimes people mess up, especially when they're swinging around big chunks o' hurt. Remove a lot of the self critical stuff and I don't see how critical fumbling could be considered 'goofy'.
I'm curious as to why the masses seem to think critical fumble (charts) are the worst thing since balut?
Sometimes people mess up, especially when they're swinging around big chunks o' hurt. Remove a lot of the self critical stuff and I don't see how critical fumbling could be considered 'goofy'.
Because, falling flat on your face 5% of the time you swing a weapon is stupid for even a novice a warrior. It's laughable to accept it when you're Omogedron the Mountain-Cleaver or whatever.
The rules are even worse if a rolled 1 is auto fumble. Regardless of how powerful or skilled you are, or how low the ac of the guy you are attacking is, you still have a 5 percent chance to fall on your sword. If you want to make things more challenging for your players use tougher monsters or better tactics, there is no need to add banana peel rules.
I'm curious as to why the masses seem to think critical fumble (charts) are the worst thing since balut?
Sometimes people mess up, especially when they're swinging around big chunks o' hurt. Remove a lot of the self critical stuff and I don't see how critical fumbling could be considered 'goofy'.
Fumble systems, at least every single one I've ever seen, most punish the people least likely to mess up horribly (highly-skilled melee combatants) and least punish those most likely to mess up horribly (poorly-skilled non-melee combatants).
Say you've got a 20th level fighter making 4 attacks each round. That means, on average, he is going to fumble once every 5 rounds. That means one of the most skilled and experience fighters in the world is ****ing up royally twice a minute.
Compare that to the wet-behind-the-ears Wizard whose only experience with a dagger is going "swish swish!" while swinging it around in the shop before he bought it. He might, if things go very badly and her burns all his spells, make a total of half a dozen melee attacks in a whole combat. That means he might go days without every fumbling once.
There are numerous other reasons, many having to do with meta-concepts of game balance, encounter design, NPC vs. PC table-time, etc., but the ultimate reason, beyond the simple and stupid one mentioned above, is that they do absolutely nothing to make the game more fun.
Sure some people will say "we enjoy a more "realistic" game and fumbles help enhance "realism", but that is damning with faint-praise. I doubt even these die-hard adherents to D&D "realism" shout "All right, my sword just broke! Woo hoo!" when they roll snake-eyes.
Also, being a skilled combatant - there is a plausibility issue. I can believe PCs might lose their grip on their weapons, or trip, or possibly even slightly wound themselves from blows they couldn't deflect and mitigate somewhat - but it seems a real stretch to have someone critically wound themselves... you miss with the shortsword and somehow manage to decapitate yourself? It seems a little too slapstick, to me. How for instance, could you crit yourself with a bow... somehow you managed to wind up in front of your bow as your arrow shot? The string snapping at precisely the wrong time opened your jugular vein? The price of fumbling is already high enough - you miss in combat with someone trying to kill you, maybe you lose your weapon and have to spend a precious action picking it up (possibly exposing yourself to Attacks of Opportunity). Making you also take damage is just unnecessary.
is that they do absolutely nothing to make the game more fun.
To be fair, what makes the game fun for one person screws it up for another. There are people who like the random silliness of throwing your sword across the room and impaling your friend on it.
Now, what fumble rules (and another house rule I hate, permanent injuries like limb loss) are definitely not is fair. "But they're applied to monsters and PCs equally!" Doesn't matter. Gobby the Goblin is only going to be there for one fight; if he gets a limb chopped off, it has no lasting repercussions. If your PC gets a limb chopped off, that utterly cripples him because he has to keep dealing with it. Fumbles are basically the same thing; Gobby may fumble once during his life, because he has a one-encounter lifespan. PCs are going to fumble, and fumble, and fumble ...
To be fair, what makes the game fun for one person screws it up for another. There are people who like the random silliness of throwing your sword across the room and impaling your friend on it.
Now, what fumble rules (and another house rule I hate, permanent injuries like limb loss) are definitely not is fair. "But they're applied to monsters and PCs equally!" Doesn't matter. Gobby the Goblin is only going to be there for one fight; if he gets a limb chopped off, it has no lasting repercussions. If your PC gets a limb chopped off, that utterly cripples him because he has to keep dealing with it. Fumbles are basically the same thing; Gobby may fumble once during his life, because he has a one-encounter lifespan. PCs are going to fumble, and fumble, and fumble ...
I do understand and empathized with your point; so I don't want you to take what I'm saying the wrong way. However, I feel that it is that type of meta-game thinking that has caused an unfavorable shift in game design.
long explanation
It seems that all we care about is what is relavent to "encounters". For me, this really takes away from the versimilitude of a game. Maybe you get a reputation for lobbing-off the arms of enemies, which gives you a vicious reputation. Or maybe you're hunting someone who does that -- now you have some real fear in the players, because now they are worried that it might happen to them. Okay, so you get your arm lobbed-off -- if you don't have easy access to "gr restoration", then now you have a quest to get your arm back. It's called character development. "Oh, but it's no fun to have that happen to your character". Really? It can be if you embrace that as part of your character and just go with it -- like I said, it's called character development.
It's one thing if your DM is just trying to be a d**k. It is something else entirely, the reality of something bad happening to your character because he/she is in a dangerous line of work. Embrace it, and use it as an opportunity to roleplay your character in new and unexpected ways.
It's one thing if your DM is just trying to be a d**k. It is something else entirely, the reality of something bad happening to your character because he/she is in a dangerous line of work. Embrace it, and use it as an opportunity to roleplay your character in new and unexpected ways.
In addition, fumbles are rarely applied 'across the board'. PC fumbles, he rolls the crit table or whatever. NPC or BBEG fumbles, the DM never rolls the table or he fudges the roll to a regular fumble...
In all fairness, that's a problem with the group and not the mechanic. If PCs want something extra special awesome, they should assume that others have access to that as well. If DMs want to the option to put the hurt on PCs, they should allow the same to happen to their BBEGs and minions.
I agree with 1 = auto-fumble is lameness because 20 != auto-crit; having to confirm both or neither is the way to go. It's like balancing an equation.
We could argue about this forever because we all have very strong opinions about our games or we wouldn't be here. :P I'll just end my, um, textalizations (you know...text based vocalizations :P) with the comment that my group (unanimously) does use crit (hit/fumble) confirmation rolls, the critical fumble deck, and everyone in the world is subject to the same rules. We like it because it breaks up the mechanical monotony that happens often in combat. *shrug* It doesn't work for everyone but it works for us.
Fumble rules disproportionately punish characters that roll a lot of dice. In 3.5 for example you could have a fighter who takes multiple attacks a round, (having a chance to fumble each roll) while the wizard in the party primarily casts spells that don't require hit rolls. The rules would have the same effect in 4E with classes that have a lot of area of effect spells being subject to more risk of fumbling than classes that primarily hit one foe at a time.
The rules are even worse if a rolled 1 is auto fumble. Regardless of how powerful or skilled you are, or how low the ac of the guy you are attacking is, you still have a 5 percent chance to fall on your sword. If you want to make things more challenging for your players use tougher monsters or better tactics, there is no need to add banana peel rules.
Not really. Here's why.
In a 3.5e fumble threat (always a 1), have your player reroll the swing. Since they're essentially attacking themselves at that point, I say they still have to beat their own AC with all bonuses, but without their BAB or STR/DEX mod added to the swing. Rognar the Epic Smashbastard probably has an AC of around 18+. That means he has to roll a natural 18+ to hit himself on a fumble.
This way, most fumbles won't fumble, and when they do, it'll be the wizard who made a bad swing with his free wooden stick (quarterstaff) and baps himself in the face, because he has no business swinging much anyway.
PS. Incidentally, that means a player no longer has a 5% chance to fumble. They have .05 * (20-x/20), where x = their AC. For a character with an AC of, say, 14, this is a 1.5% chance to fumble. A fighter with an AC of 20+ cannot fumble unless they roll ANOTHER 1, which only has a 0.25% chance of happening.
If your PC gets a limb chopped off, that utterly cripples him because he has to keep dealing with it. Fumbles are basically the same thing; Gobby may fumble once during his life, because he has a one-encounter lifespan. PCs are going to fumble, and fumble, and fumble ...
I think things like limb loss could be kind of cool, if limited to a special ability on high end challenges once the PCs have ready access to a fix. I'm not familiar enough with 4e, but I know at least in 3.5 once you have ready access to regenerate a lost limb is at worst a 1-day debuff. If that's the case, it's okay throw around once in a while just to make things interesting.
I think things like limb loss could be kind of cool, if limited to a special ability on high end challenges once the PCs have ready access to a fix. I'm not familiar enough with 4e, but I know at least in 3.5 once you have ready access to regenerate a lost limb is at worst a 1-day debuff. If that's the case, it's okay throw around once in a while just to make things interesting.
In 3.5e, a sorcerer who loses an arm is halfway to Pale Master. A character that loses an eye will take negs to CHA but they'll get bonuses on Intimidate...especially if they don't patch it. It's hard to say "no" to someone who is staring you down with nothing but an eye socket.
A character that loses an eye will take negs to CHA but they'll get bonuses on Intimidate...especially if they don't patch it..
How in the world does losing an eye make you weaker in spirit & force of personality. That makes no sense at all. It's totally arbitrary.
Besides limb-loss when you would still need a patch (before you can just grow a new one) would be a terrible idea. It's kind of cool as over-the-top violence in a game where the mechanical implications are short lived. However I don't think it has a place as a long-lasting impact on a character unless they want it to happen for their own story reasons. ("I think it would be cool if my character lost an eye and started wearing an eye patch cause that is badass").
How in the world does losing an eye make you weaker in spirit & force of personality. That makes no sense at all. It's totally arbitrary.
Besides limb-loss when you would still need a patch (before you can just grow a new one) would be a terrible idea. It's kind of cool as over-the-top violence in a game where the mechanical implications are short lived. However I don't think it has a place as a long-lasting impact on a character unless they want it to happen for their own story reasons. ("I think it would be cool if my character lost an eye and started wearing an eye patch cause that is badass").
I play it like it's my PC's lives. You can't tell a random flying girder from a collapsing building that it's not convenient for it to hit you today. Well, you can, but that time was better spent dodging it, because it's not going to listen.
The CHA loss was on a fighter. And he RP'd it as being demoralized for it a bit, but started wearing without an eyepatch for the sake of intimidating others.
What happens to characters in a campaign, IMHO, should be determined by the character's actions, the world's reactions, and chance. If a player is so attached to a character that they can't take losing it or having its development altered (note the word Altered), they're too attached to it and need to play something that doesn't penalize mistakes or lean on real chance like WoW. You'll find if the players know it's a real chance ahead of time, they won't complain 90% of the time. If they're good players, they'll play the hand they are dealt, not whine that they don't like the cards.
Unless a character is a quadrapalegic midget half-orc with no access to magic or psionic powers and a CHA of 2, it can function in a D&D world as capably as any other character if played correctly.
I won't play a game where "It's always fun until someone loses an eye", unless it's one that is followed with "Then it's just awesome because everyone starts ripping out eyes, spleens, and dangly bits until someone wins".
it was a nice blast to the past.:D
In 3.5e, a sorcerer who loses an arm is halfway to Pale Master. A character that loses an eye will take negs to CHA but they'll get bonuses on Intimidate...especially if they don't patch it. It's hard to say "no" to someone who is staring you down with nothing but an eye socket.
I play it like it's my PC's lives. You can't tell a random flying girder from a collapsing building that it's not convenient for it to hit you today. Well, you can, but that time was better spent dodging it, because it's not going to listen.
The CHA loss was on a fighter. And he RP'd it as being demoralized for it a bit, but started wearing without an eyepatch for the sake of intimidating others.
What happens to characters in a campaign, IMHO, should be determined by the character's actions, the world's reactions, and chance. If a player is so attached to a character that they can't take losing it or having its development altered (note the word Altered), they're too attached to it and need to play something that doesn't penalize mistakes or lean on real chance like WoW. You'll find if the players know it's a real chance ahead of time, they won't complain 90% of the time. If they're good players, they'll play the hand they are dealt, not whine that they don't like the cards.
Unless a character is a quadrapalegic midget half-orc with no access to magic or psionic powers and a CHA of 2, it can function in a D&D world as capably as any other character if played correctly.
I won't play a game where "It's always fun until someone loses an eye", unless it's one that is followed with "Then it's just awesome because every starts ripping out eyes, spleens, and dangly bits until someone wins".
:pile: totally spot-on
Someone mentioned earlier the idea of allowing RL deities to lead to trouble?
SOmeone asked me today if I'd like to join a campaign where there were only 3 alignments (G,N,E), the deity was God, and all of the other deities were the "Real Life false god" faces of Satan, and the party goal was to convert the world or destroy God's enemies.
I'm not Christian. Still, I was offended on behalf of all people who are, because that's...yeah...
She went on to tell me the goal was to turn the D&D "tool of satan" into a method of ministry. She figured the characters could then go on to other games and do the same thing.
Truly mortifying.
New Worst Houserule. I know this because someone asked me today to join it....
Someone mentioned earlier the idea of allowing RL deities to lead to trouble?
SOmeone asked me today if I'd like to join a campaign where there were only 3 alignments (G,N,E), the deity was God, and all of the other deities were the "Real Life false god" faces of Satan, and the party goal was to convert the world or destroy God's enemies.
I'm not Christian. Still, I was offended on behalf of all people who are, because that's...yeah...
She went on to tell me the goal was to turn the D&D "tool of satan" into a method of ministry. She figured the characters could then go on to other games and do the same thing.
Truly mortifying.
Well, you gotta respect her ingenuity, at least.
Otherwise, yeah, that's gotta be some type of "gamer espionage/terrorism". I think that in some countries, that would constitute the death penalty. :D
Though i guarantee he'd play 4e ^.^
After what the 700 Club did to D&D with their smear campaign and old ads showing kids stalking other children with intent to murder so they can resurrect a character, I'd love to play a game with Pat Roberson as DM, just to experience it.
Though i guarantee he'd play 4e ^.^
Hey, I'll play it; but only so long as she is the DM :D
The DM houseruled that since Females were the weaker sex they should have a - 2 to strength, no plus's, the supposed payoff for this was their ability to have babies.
had a dm that had the option of females = -2 str, +2 wis, +1 on all dex- and cha-based checks (except intimidate).
Sounds like the you had a Male DM Mobar. And almost sounds like you had a female DM jgumbyrx since they got a +2 WIS.
If anything I think it should of been -2 STR and +2 CHA. Cause let's face it most women can get what they want and have a much easier time convincing people then males do. Sounds like Diplomacy, Bluff, and all the other CHA based stuff to me. Cause while most woman like the think they are smarter and wiser then men it's not really true. Lots of studies have been done and they show no significant difference between the genders when it comes to intelligence/wisdom.
This rule makes no sense to me at all. More so when you are using certain campaign settings and the races are even in the area of the adventure.
The dice are irrelevant. If I say you missed, you missed. (My brother as DM)
Allowing gods to possess your PC if the DM decides you aren't doing something the way he wants. (Same DM as above)
Allowing RW deities. Recipe for disaster no matter how nice you're trying to be to the Christian Fundamentalist who has decided on her own that as God's only representative on Abeir-Toril, God would let her achieve any effect she wanted at insanely powerful levels. (She didn't tell us anything about this. I was willing to work with existing spells, but not anything invoking Armageddon at 1st level. This houserule got yanked immediately.)
Wow... from all of my lurking, I know a bit about your brother as a DM.
And this... I mean...
He, uh, seems like an interesting DM. I'm not lying when I say I would want to sit in on one of his sessions. But not play.
Not too sure about the "God" thing. I mean, I'm a good Christian but I have no problem having my paladin of Bahamut smite some stuff in his name. It's a game, after all.
The "pally" as my DM calls him is my party's favorite too. I just love taking a few lines from Dorkness Rising and having him shout them.
Anyways, I'm not too experienced in house rules 'cause I'm a beginner, but my DM used to have this thing where if you got hit for your bloodied value you automatically fall unconscious.
Worked against us more than for us,though. He sent some freakin' powerful drake thingies after us. They did, like, plus 9 flippin' damage when their buddy was around.
After that session, however, he stopped using that rule.
It was his first time at the plate, though, so I don't blame him. He also didn't know about weapon proficiency bonus on at-wills.
How we made it through kobold hall... I have NO CLUE.
...You get weapon proficiency bonuses with all attacks, don't you?
All attacks that have the Weapon keyword, yes.
This is important if you can use a weapon as an implement; you only get the proficiency bonus with weapon attacks. Attacks with the implement keyword do not benefit.
If anything I think it should of been -2 STR and +2 CHA. Cause let's face it most women can get what they want and have a much easier time convincing people then males do. Sounds like Diplomacy, Bluff, and all the other CHA based stuff to me. Cause while most woman like the think they are smarter and wiser then men it's not really true. Lots of studies have been done and they show no significant difference between the genders when it comes to intelligence/wisdom.
I don't think giving penalties/bonuses for gender is a good idea no matter how you do it. There are always exceptions to the rule in real life AND this is a fantasy game...If you can handle wizards casting magic missile, you can deal with a woman that has a 22 Str and 8 Cha...
I don't think giving penalties/bonuses for gender is a good idea no matter how you do it. There are always exceptions to the rule in real life AND this is a fantasy game...If you can handle wizards casting magic missile, you can deal with a woman that has a 22 Str and 8 Cha...
I quite agree. The version I posted was REALLY bad but these aren't much better.
However, most(if not all) critical miss/fumble tables are a bad idea. I for one do not wish to play a professinal adventure who is always dropping their weapon, falling over, unstringing their bow, etc.
The best critical miss house rule I've seen was on these forums(unfortunately I do not remember the thread or the poster). A -2 to AC until the beginning of your next turn. This acts as though your character's critical miss caused him/her to get off balance/open up his/her defenses for only a few seconds. In my group the penalty to AC only applies on a confirmed miss(roll of 10 or below). You could even go further and have the penalty to AC be equal to the weapon's critical damage multipler(x2(-2), x3(-3), etc) the character is using/attacking with.
I don't think giving penalties/bonuses for gender is a good idea no matter how you do it. There are always exceptions to the rule in real life AND this is a fantasy game...If you can handle wizards casting magic missile, you can deal with a woman that has a 22 Str and 8 Cha...
Are you describing yourself?
sorry, I just couldn't resist.
In 3.5e, a sorcerer who loses an arm is halfway to Pale Master. A character that loses an eye will take negs to CHA but they'll get bonuses on Intimidate...especially if they don't patch it. It's hard to say "no" to someone who is staring you down with nothing but an eye socket.
to jgumbyrx as well - Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be. I can show you my character's Vawn plan, we started at level 5, I have it down. alienist 1 to level 15, then archmage. One of the items I use is a staff of fire. A spellcaster that loses an arm suddenly can't cast spells and use a metamagic rod. or use a crossbow. or staff. or any decent weapon really for if they want to be crazy and use Tenser's transformation in a pinch. I can accept my character being DEAD. after all we have a cleric who can cast resurrection and raise dead like *that* in the party already. or I can make a new character.
to jgumbyrx as well - Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be. I can show you my character's Vawn plan, we started at level 5, I have it down. alienist 1 to level 15, then archmage. One of the items I use is a staff of fire. A spellcaster that loses an arm suddenly can't cast spells and use a metamagic rod. or use a crossbow. or staff. or any decent weapon really for if they want to be crazy and use Tenser's transformation in a pinch. I can accept my character being DEAD. after all we have a cleric who can cast resurrection and raise dead like *that* in the party already. or I can make a new character.
Pale Master rips his own arm off and replaces it with a grafted, undead one.
Also, this is precisely the metagaming that 3.5e players trend to hate. A "plan" is fantastic...I can tell you now I "plan" to level my current PC lock to 18 levels of Warlock and 2 levels of Fighter. I accept, however, that I might not be able to do that. If that happens, then I will work around it, not give up on the character. Half the fun of RP is adaptation, and it's RolePlayingGame, not DiceRollingGame. If you approach d20 with the WoW "this is how I'm going to spec my mage out" mentality, you're playing the wrong game, and Blizzard would love your business.
And btw, a mage with one arm and a +1 rapier, with a Dex of 18 and Weapon Finesse, can ruin anyone's day. And a Warlock in 3.5e can fling his blasts as well with one hand as with two....which is what he should usually be doing.
Edit: Actually, there's one thing you said that made the muscles in my neck twitch more than anything else. " Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be." You can no more know that than know that when you graduate college with a degree in Programming, you'll be a Software Engineer (newsflash for those in college, you have roughly a 60% chance of actually getting a job in your field. Lower right now, only 20% of college grads this past year are even employed). Just remember, any plan is perfect until met with the enemy.
Pale Master rips his own arm off and replaces it with a grafted, undead one.
Also, this is precisely the metagaming that 3.5e players trend to hate. A "plan" is fantastic...I can tell you now I "plan" to level my current PC lock to 18 levels of Warlock and 2 levels of Fighter. I accept, however, that I might not be able to do that. If that happens, then I will work around it, not give up on the character. Half the fun of RP is adaptation, and it's RolePlayingGame, not DiceRollingGame. If you approach d20 with the WoW "this is how I'm going to spec my mage out" mentality, you're playing the wrong game, and Blizzard would love your business.
And btw, a mage with one arm and a +1 rapier, with a Dex of 18 and Weapon Finesse, can ruin anyone's day. And a Warlock in 3.5e can fling his blasts as well with one hand as with two....which is what he should usually be doing.
Edit: Actually, there's one thing you said that made the muscles in my neck twitch more than anything else. " Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be." You can no more know that than know that when you graduate college with a degree in Programming, you'll be a Software Engineer (newsflash for those in college, you have roughly a 60% chance of actually getting a job in your field. Lower right now, only 20% of college grads this past year are even employed). Just remember, any plan is perfect until met with the enemy.
absolutely perfect -- I've got nothing to add to that; just want to reinforce everything that you said.:pile:
At the start of the first session, all characters will be stipped of all remaining unspent starting cash (for seemingly all campaigns DMed by this individual, and regardless of whether or not new players had been duly informed beforehand)...
I think there was some sort of half-assed, railroaded, rp explanation, but I don't really recall what it was (given that DM's reputation, I was only in that game because I was exceptionally bored, and was only sort-of paying attention at the time...), but the fact that it seems to be standard practice somewhat nullifies that point.
Are you describing yourself?
sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Oh
no! I'm probably an 8 Str and 9 Cha. :PMy personal most-hated houserule that I've actually encountered in play:
At the start of the first session, all characters will be stipped of all remaining unspent starting cash (for seemingly all campaigns DMed by this individual, and regardless of whether or not new players had been duly informed beforehand)...
I think there was some sort of half-assed, railroaded, rp explanation, but I don't really recall what it was (given that DM's reputation, I was only in that game because I was exceptionally bored, and was only sort-of paying attention at the time...), but the fact that it seems to be standard practice somewhat nullifies that point.
Wow, I've actually had that experience. It was a long while ago, but the first time I made a character higher than level 1, I figured out that I didn't have anything to spend my gold on. Anything worthwhile was too expensive, and anything I could afford wasn't useful. So I kept the gold in my pocket, thinking I could later afford something better after the campaign got rolling.
BUT WAIT! The DM didn't like that. So when I finally announced it - when the DM divided up gold and I totaled mine up to having way more than the party - he declared that all that extra gold just vanished. Because I hadn't spent it, I didn't get to keep it. Made no sense, and I remember just fuming about it for days.
Rant over, here are some other house rules that I've never liked.
Equality for All: Every single party member gets the exact same EXP regardless of his/her actual experiences. Rogue went off on his own, killed several enemies by himself, and came back richer? Guess who levels up. Oh yes, the rogue does, but so does the fighter who did exactly jack while the rogue went on his own. I understand trying to keep the party at the same level, but one or two levels does not make much difference, especially in 3.5...
Critical Failure/Hit: Just plain confusing. Whenever you roll a Nat 1, you reroll the die and subtract 20 from the result; so if my warrior has a total +attack of 35, it's now 15 on a new roll. Opposite for Nat 20; reroll, and add 20 to the check. The real problem is, now critical hits become confusing. So I rolled a Nat 20, now I have to roll again to see if I even hit it (Albeit at +20 to the attack), and then I have to roll to confirm the crit. And any subsequent Nat 1s or 20s require more rerolls...
The DM is a Fickle, Fickle God: Anything that he doesn't like, goes. One example: A player decided to play a Psion, and at one point used a power that didn't allow a saving throw. The more points that got put into the power, the more d4s were thrown. DM response? "No way, that's overpowered. He gets a Will Save at least."
No Save-or-Die: Granted, this one actually isn't terrible; save-or-die mechanics were extremely annoying. But what he did was basically say, "These spells don't exist anymore. Ever." This, to a player that already decided on his spells. This required another good 20-30 minutes or so of that player going through his list and replacing spells because the DM decreed them overpowered.
EDIT - Also, the 'No Adamantine' Rule: Adamantine is a lot more powerful than described in the books. To balance it out, anything already made of adamantine is now made of some type of heavy iron or reinforced alloy of some sort. The reason was mainly to keep a plot hook about someone who wrote a book on how to forge weapons and armor out of adamantine, something that was nearly impossible for the world. My only question is...why bother changing adamantine? Why not just call it some new metal?
Pale Master rips his own arm off and replaces it with a grafted, undead one.
Also, this is precisely the metagaming that 3.5e players trend to hate. A "plan" is fantastic...I can tell you now I "plan" to level my current PC lock to 18 levels of Warlock and 2 levels of Fighter. I accept, however, that I might not be able to do that. If that happens, then I will work around it, not give up on the character. Half the fun of RP is adaptation, and it's RolePlayingGame, not DiceRollingGame. If you approach d20 with the WoW "this is how I'm going to spec my mage out" mentality, you're playing the wrong game, and Blizzard would love your business.
Best laid plans can be messed up. however, there is always a solution for a problem. lost a limb? go visit a big city and shell out for regeneration. no big deal, right? Oh wait. that's right, its not always a spellcaster. it could be the fighter who was using a great sword, who has weapon focus and weapon specialization greatsword, and improved critical greatsword who in the case of not having 5 minute local no catch regeneration services available, might as well go walk off a cliff.
And btw, a mage with one arm and a +1 rapier, with a Dex of 18 and Weapon Finesse, can ruin anyone's day. And a Warlock in 3.5e can fling his blasts as well with one hand as with two....which is what he should usually be doing.
Edit: Actually, there's one thing you said that made the muscles in my neck twitch more than anything else. " Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be." You can no more know that than know that when you graduate college with a degree in Programming, you'll be a Software Engineer (newsflash for those in college, you have roughly a 60% chance of actually getting a job in your field. Lower right now, only 20% of college grads this past year are even employed). Just remember, any plan is perfect until met with the enemy.
If that wizard put his rapier away, he could ruin anyone's day. Otherwise he's just a joke who is in most situations, about to be injured or outright killed, very quickly.
and I am fully aware about best laid plans needing to change. needing to deal with your enemies though, is not even remotely the same as what class you pick though. a paladin who takes undead slayer because of lots of dead at the moment could find suddenly his extra abilities useless and falling to even below Junk fighter in actual effectiveness. I'll take foresight and a good strategy beforehand because it may just make the need to shift later not matter if you accounted for enough.
Critical Failure/Hit: Just plain confusing. Whenever you roll a Nat 1, you reroll the die and subtract 20 from the result; so if my warrior has a total +attack of 35, it's now 15 on a new roll. Opposite for Nat 20; reroll, and add 20 to the check. The real problem is, now critical hits become confusing. So I rolled a Nat 20, now I have to roll again to see if I even hit it (Albeit at +20 to the attack), and then I have to roll to confirm the crit. And any subsequent Nat 1s or 20s require more rerolls...
That's just extra bizarre.
So my dwarf paladin hits level 7 and is about to take some paladin prestige class. Suddenly he becomes a human??!? Why you might ask. Because DM feels like humans are better suited for paladins. An it was for purley theoretical reasons, as balance was as alien to this DM as snow is in south Louisiana.
Or we had a 7th level wizard. He got possessed by ragamyffin or however you spell those things. By the time we got him back he was a 1st level fighter with hp, attack bonuses, skills and saves of a level 7th level wizard. And no, he was not a munchkin wizard player that needed to be toned down. This was kid's first DnD game.
He had some other bizarre house rules, but most of those, while weird, were not really game breaking or anything.
Not quite a houserule but definitely going RAW too far, my brother wanted to run a Traveller game back in the day, but he insisted we use the total character generation aspect, which was designed for people who had no idea what kind of character they wanted to play. We couldn't play the characters we had envisioned, we had to play whatever the dice told us to play. Yuck. Iwouldn't have minded the tall and thin part, but a myopic socialist who hung around coffee houses trying mooch free drinks? I can think of games where that might be fun, but not when I want to play a star-hopping mercenary!
I'm not sure this was a house rule or what, but close enough. The DM would randomly change your character's race or class after some important even in the character's life. This was back in 3.5 btw.
So my dwarf paladin hits level 7 and is about to take some paladin prestige class. Suddenly he becomes a human??!? Why you might ask. Because DM feels like humans are better suited for paladins. An it was for purley theoretical reasons, as balance was as alien to this DM as snow is in south Louisiana.
Or we had a 7th level wizard. He got possessed by ragamyffin or however you spell those things. By the time we got him back he was a 1st level fighter with hp, attack bonuses, skills and saves of a level 7th level wizard. And no, he was not a munchkin wizard player that needed to be toned down. This was kid's first DnD game.
He had some other bizarre house rules, but most of those, while weird, were not really game breaking or anything.
Not only was that a house rule, but it was a buggered one. Cursed items can change your race or gender.....but taking a *level* in something??
Best laid plans can be messed up. however, there is always a solution for a problem. lost a limb? go visit a big city and shell out for regeneration. no big deal, right? Oh wait. that's right, its not always a spellcaster. it could be the fighter who was using a great sword, who has weapon focus and weapon specialization greatsword, and improved critical greatsword who in the case of not having 5 minute local no catch regeneration services available, might as well go walk off a cliff.
Monkey Grip. If the game mechanics exist for workaround, then asking the game to change to make it easier is senseless whining. I know if I lost an arm and was specialized in two handed weapons, I'd be trying to fix it by any means necessary....but sometimes this causes a character to enter retirement from adventuring. Reroll I could understand, if RP'd. I think, as a DM, I'd open up an opportunity for a Limited Wish if it COMPLETELY ruined the character, but my players are good at playing the hand they are dealt.
If that wizard put his rapier away, he could ruin anyone's day. Otherwise he's just a joke who is in most situations, about to be injured or outright killed, very quickly.
You're right, because losing an arm doesn't affect spellcasting. Losing both does. It's overcome either way by using Stilled Spells.
and I am fully aware about best laid plans needing to change. needing to deal with your enemies though, is not even remotely the same as what class you pick though.
If your DM doesn't suck then they will adjust the game to challenge the characters without making it impossible. There is no "best" path to level if your DM is worth his salt. That's the difference between d20 and things like WoW. Personally, I think this very point you made is built in to D&D 3.5e to punish metagamers and break their combos..
a paladin who takes undead slayer because of lots of dead at the moment could find suddenly his extra abilities useless and falling to even below Junk fighter in actual effectiveness.
That's because the Undead Slayer is the class equivalent in lameness to Toughness as a feat. Anyone who takes Toughness for any reason less than getting into a prestige class should be smacked. The class itself is really for 100% undead campaigns. Still, if you find your abilities no longer come into play, then you just have to think more.
I'll take foresight and a good strategy beforehand because it may just make the need to shift later not matter if you accounted for enough.
Wisely said. Plan to be able to handle situations, not to have one or two broken combos that are easily hosed.
Not really. Here's why.
In a 3.5e fumble threat (always a 1), have your player reroll the swing. Since they're essentially attacking themselves at that point, I say they still have to beat their own AC with all bonuses, but without their BAB or STR/DEX mod added to the swing. Rognar the Epic Smashbastard probably has an AC of around 18+. That means he has to roll a natural 18+ to hit himself on a fumble.
This way, most fumbles won't fumble, and when they do, it'll be the wizard who made a bad swing with his free wooden stick (quarterstaff) and baps himself in the face, because he has no business swinging much anyway.
And still it has the innate problem that the most skilled high level melee combatants have fumble chances the most often, which is stupid.
And always the question, in what way does this make the game more fun?
I do understand and empathized with your point; so I don't want you to take what I'm saying the wrong way. However, I feel that it is that type of meta-game thinking that has caused an unfavorable shift in game design.
Paying attention to basic game design tenets is not "meta gaming", it is common sense.
I think things like limb loss could be kind of cool, if limited to a special ability on high end challenges once the PCs have ready access to a fix. I'm not familiar enough with 4e, but I know at least in 3.5 once you have ready access to regenerate a lost limb is at worst a 1-day debuff. If that's the case, it's okay throw around once in a while just to make things interesting.
If they are able to fix it, then why bother doing it at all? Where is the net gain?
What happens to characters in a campaign, IMHO, should be determined by the character's actions, the world's reactions, and chance. If a player is so attached to a character that they can't take losing it or having its development altered (note the word Altered), they're too attached to it and need to play something that doesn't penalize mistakes or lean on real chance like WoW. You'll find if the players know it's a real chance ahead of time, they won't complain 90% of the time. If they're good players, they'll play the hand they are dealt, not whine that they don't like the cards.
So anyone who recognizes fumble systems as the stupidly punitive and arbitrary wastes of time that are "can't take losing (a character) or having its development altered" and should just go play WoW?
What a load of horse****.
In my opinion, if there are critical hits, then there should also be critical misses(with the critical misses confirming to miss just as you confirm to hit on a critical hit).
Why?
The best critical miss house rule I've seen was on these forums(unfortunately I do not remember the thread or the poster). A -2 to AC until the beginning of your next turn. This acts as though your character's critical miss caused him/her to get off balance/open up his/her defenses for only a few seconds. In my group the penalty to AC only applies on a confirmed miss(roll of 10 or below). You could even go further and have the penalty to AC be equal to the weapon's critical damage multipler(x2(-2), x3(-3), etc) the character is using/attacking with.
So again it suffers the same problem that the most skilled melee combatants are the ones most often making stupid mistakes and opening themselves up to counterattacks. Still bad.
Paying attention to basic game design tenets is not "meta gaming", it is common sense.
If by that you mean something like taking the power attack feat for your 20+ str barbarian, then yes, your right. However, when you refuse to accept a potential role-playing situation simply because it involves your character dealing with a danger/consequence of adventuing because it imposes a mechanical disadvantage -- then yes, that's metagaming.
I'll break this down a little further:
To say something to the affect of "it's not fair because that guy only exists for me to kill; but I have a whole character progression to think about", is indeed, by definition, metagaming. It's also kinda cry-baby.
If an out-of-character mechanic is the origin for in-character motivations (i.e., character decisions are based on game-mechanic reasons), roleplay has ceased, and you are now simply performing a function of mathmatical advantage.
The "video game mentality" refers to a certain philosophical approach to the game. The idea involves stuff like:
- having a mechanical disadvantage imposed makes things unnecessarily hard/unfair,
- if things get too hard, I'll just start over/hit reset (i.e., make a new character)
- all (or at least most) decisions are made from the perspective of "how does this help me win the game".
And all of these are indeed examples of metagaming.
i don't mean to go off on a rant, but ...
This is called the "video game mentality" because these are common and widely accepted practices for video games. However, when it comes to roleplaying games, concidered bad form/faith (or, at least is used to be). Over the years, because of the ever-increasing prominece video games have in everyday life, this metality has crept in to other areas, to include roleplaying games. Just because the package of the game says "RPG", does not necessarily mean that it is indeed a roleplaying game -- any roleplaying going on is simply a token amount -- "RPG" for video games should probably be renamed "RPG-inspired". Kinda like the way a movie is based on a book or "real life events" -- the movie is just an attempt that never truely gets the whole picture.
Of course, I don't blame this entirely on video games (though the corrolation and natural progression is obvious) -- in a "bigger picture" kinda way, I see it as a function of a culture that has an ever-increasing desire for instant gratification and insistance on having the "easy" option. It's sad, really.
Of course, I don't blame this entirely on video games (though the corrolation and natural progression is obvious) -- in a "bigger picture" kinda way, I see it as a function of a culture that has an ever-increasing desire for instant gratification and insistance on having the "easy" option. It's sad, really.
Critical fumbles are just bad rules design, and stating the obvious is not meta gaming or whining. If you want to up the difficulty of a game use tougher monsters, then at the least players can feel a sense of accomplishment when they lose an arm saving a village from the BBEG (and getting the appropriate story and game rewards for such a challenge).
I'll break this down a little further:
To say something to the affect of "it's not fair because that guy only exists for me to kill; but I have a whole character progression to think about", is indeed, by definition, metagaming. It's also kinda cry-baby.
You are projecting motivations that do not exist.
The notion that fumbles applying equally to monsters/NPCs and PCs is fair - as in equitable, not the "it's not fair!" whining you are implying - is nonsense as monsters/NPCs serve entirely different functions. Fumbles matter not one iota to an NPC or monster, whereas the worse the fumble system the more negatively it impacts the entire play experience.
Why do you feel the need to make thinly-veiled insults and pejorative attacks against those who understand something you do not?
how about these rules for 4th ed, my DM put this on my Fighter using a polearm
I cant use a power that pushes, pulls, or slides something that is larger than me, and instead of me pushing, pulling or sliding the monster gets to move me around like a toy...
or how about this,
if I can knock someone prone with say footwork lure, or sweeping stike (it could happen) I cant if it has more than 2 legs, it is one size or more larger than me, it can fly, or it has a burrow speed, or if it is something like a snake, or a cube.
if I am a battlerager build I can only get the TEMP HP from my at-will once per encounter, and my battlerager TEMP HP does not stack, OOHHH and I only get my Temp HP when hit the first time I'm hit the encounter not every time.
I gave up on that campaign shortly after the second game when the DM said He needed to balance my character.
Saying you can't, is wrong, it makes your powers useless.
Adjusting for some things, good gaming I think. I would imagine it would be harder to kick out the legs of a giant spider, but not impossible.
For martial powers that move creatures, it's an on basis call I think. But generally if the creatures taking up a lot of squares, generally moving it back a few squares doesn't make much of a difference, unless it's right over a cliff at the start of the encounter. That's the DM's fault then.
If they are able to fix it, then why bother doing it at all? Where is the net gain?
It's called roleplaying. ;)
So anyone who recognizes fumble systems as the stupidly punitive and arbitrary wastes of time that are "can't take losing (a character) or having its development altered" and should just go play WoW?
What a load of horse****.
Not all fumble systems are bad.
Why?
If someone has the possiblity of making a critical hit, then they should also have the same equal(or nearly) possiblity of making a critical miss, it's what we call 'balance'
So again it suffers the same problem that the most skilled melee combatants are the ones most often making stupid mistakes and opening themselves up to counterattacks. Still bad.
Engaging in melee combat is indeed rather dangerous. A character fighting in melee is putting themselves in more danger than someone casting spells or firing a bow at a distance.
It's called roleplaying. ;)
No, it's not. It's called wasting everyone's valuable table-time just to end up where you started instead of roleplaying.
Not all fumble systems are bad.
I've yet to see one that isn't, including all mentioned in this thread.
It someone has the possiblity of making a critical hit, then they should also have the same equal(or nearly) possiblity of making a critical miss, it's what we call 'balance'
Who is this "we" of which you speak? I do not call it "balance", I call it an ill-considered attempt to hammer in something erroneously called "balance" where none exists or is required by people who have not fully considered the ramifications of their actions.
Engaging in melee combat is indeed rather dangerous. A character fighting in melee is putting themselves in more danger than someone casting spells or firing a bow at a distance.
So why then will grossly inexperienced types like the spellcaster or bow-user **** up significantly less often than an experienced master of melee combat when forced into melee?
Any system which punishes the most skilled, particularity in the specific area of their expertise, is a bad system.
This is slightly OT, but it illustrates the problem nicely. I've had a loathing for stupid house rules since I first started gaming, and at one point, I decided to do something about it. I wanted to prove that an rpg was better off without the *&^%$#@! things.
Back in the Dark Ages of 2nd edition, I ran a campaign which was 100% By-the-Book, NO-House-Rules-And-I-Mean-It!
The players were completely lost! They all 'knew' the way the game was played, but they hadn't ever learned from the rulebook -- they'd learned from other players, and most of what they'd learned was house rules! The situation had gotten so bad that nobody even knew what the 'official' rules were, even though they'd been playing for years. And now the guy (me) with the ludicrous idea of actually using the rulebooks was some kind of heretic. Hell, everybody knew you just can't do that!
personally I despise house rules for the most part because after I sit down trying to get a hands on the rule, I get told by some stupid DM that those rules don't apply or that they have some weird effect. for example in my current 3.5 game, the DM tells us to roll initiative every round. this a problem since most times it messes with my delayed and readied actions and i'm basically reduced to just winging my every action. no setting up effects to reap the benefits later for me.
I can understand where a DM might feel a house rule is necessary but for the most part they don't really have good reason to house rule stuff. it seems they just do it simply because they can. I find that despite certain misgivings, the RAW works perfectly.
After they got done freaking out, it became apparent the official rules didn't totally suck, and it was actually possible to run a good campaign with them! Who would have thought??? The game ran weekly for something over a year, we completed the campaign, and everyone involved had a good time doing it.
PtM
i have had this almost exact same experience. after about 6 months of playing with the group I had the time which was also my first group, it was my go at Dming. up until then I had no real inclination to actually check out the rules because i trusted my more experienced buddies. when I did start reading the rules and implementing the RAW in my game people were asking WTF I was doing because I thought I was just making up weird house rules. turns out they gamed so much with house rules that the rules just became standard for them. some of the house rules they played with were:
- if you take a standard action you turn automatically ends.
- you cannot move after attacking.
- you cannot crit with spells
personally I despise house ruling games for the most part because in my experience my DMs have always used bad judgement and also that a lot of it was based on personal biases from the past. e.g in one game my DM made the power for repulsion armor a daily power that worked only for one turn simple because we had a duel and he couldn't get close to me to hit.
I also find that DMs in my experience make house rules, not because they are actually gonna add anything to the game but because they don't like an existing rule and they can change it. DMs have way too much power for anyone's good.
another reason why I don't like house rules is because by the time most DMs get done, you have a really clunky system and you as a player wasted your time learning the finer points of certain rules so as to be a competent player. for example, my current DM is having us roll initiative every round, now I hate this because I would often ending up losing delayed and readied actions.
I don't know why people feel compelled to house rule stuff when the rules work well enough as written.
No, it's not. It's called wasting everyone's valuable table-time just to end up where you started instead of roleplaying.
I've yet to see one that isn't, including all mentioned in this thread.
Who is this "we" of which you speak? I do not call it "balance", I call it an ill-considered attempt to hammer in something erroneously called "balance" where none exists or is required by people who have not fully considered the ramifications of their actions.
So why then will grossly inexperienced types like the spellcaster or bow-user **** up significantly less often than an experienced master of melee combat when forced into melee?
Any system which punishes the most skilled, particularity in the specific area of their expertise, is a bad system.
So you pretty much just want the chance of having all of the possible positives and bonsues, while never having the chance of being subjected to the opposite possible negatives and penalities?
I see...
Not all fumble systems are bad.
If someone has the possiblity of making a critical hit, then they should also have the same equal(or nearly) possiblity of making a critical miss, it's what we call 'balance'
That's not what balance generally means. By that reasoning, a spell that does d4 damage to your enemy should also do d4 damage to you, because it's "balanced."
Anyway, maybe there are some decent fumble systems out there, but I've never seen one, but then I've never seen one that tried to be "balanced." It was always some stupid bs like you accidentally cut off your leg. Ha ha! You cut off your leg! Isn't that funny because you're a barbarian who cut off his own leg? Then everybody finishes laughing and is ready to go back to playing the game, and the dm's like, "No, seriously, you cut off your leg and now you have to make a check to stay upright or move."
Engaging in melee combat is indeed rather dangerous. A character fighting in melee is putting themselves in more danger than someone casting spells or firing a bow at a distance.
Isn't that adequately represented by the much greater chance that you will be hit by your enemies? Are you really suggesting that a trained warrior with a sword is serious danger to himself?
That's not what balance generally means. By that reasoning, a spell that does d4 damage to your enemy should also do d4 damage to you, because it's "balanced."
If you take it out of context like that, yes.
Isn't that adequately represented by the much greater chance that you will be hit by your enemies? Are you really suggesting that a trained warrior with a sword is serious danger to himself?
Please read my previous posts.
So you pretty much just want the chance of having all of the possible positives and bonsues, while never having the chance of being subjected to the opposite possible negatives and penalities?
I see...
No he is saying that he wants well thought out and implemented rules, as opposed to for instance rules that stipulate the more skilled you become in wielding a sword the more likely you are to stab yourself with it.
So you pretty much just want the chance of having all of the possible positives and bonsues, while never having the chance of being subjected to the opposite possible negatives and penalities?
No, you are simply abstracting a general view from a specific instance in an attempt to undermine the point by ridiculing it, and by extension me.
I see...
Clearly not.
No he is saying that he wants well thought out and implemented rules, as opposed to for instance rules that stipulate the more skilled you become in wielding a sword the more likely you are to stab yourself with it.
In a nutshell, this.
No he is saying that he wants well thought out and implemented rules, as opposed to for instance rules that stipulate the more skilled you become in wielding a sword the more likely you are to stab yourself with it.
Which is not the fumble system that I am supporting, and I have stated this in previous posts within this thread.
If you take it out of context like that, yes.
Hmm. Let's see:
If someone has the possiblity of making a critical hit, then they should also have the same equal(or nearly) possiblity of making a critical miss, it's what we call 'balance'
That's really, really not what balance means. If a character has a 25% chance of hitting his enemy, it does not mean that he has a 25% chance of hitting himself. That's so far from the gaming definition of balance that I have a hard time believing you could assert something so ridiculous.
Please read my previous posts.
Your previous posts did nothing to disabuse me of the notion that your idea of "balancing" double damage against a single enemy is to place a permanently disabling effect, such as a lost arm, on a player.
OK, I admit I did not go back far enough. In fact you advocate exactly what I describe below, which seems unnecessary but not too bad. Apologies for misconstruing you. I had you confused with somebody else.
If you want to balance critical misses with critical hits – which is not even remotely necessary for game balance, but is not, of itself, a terrible concept – then the penalty should be equal to gaining double damage against a single enemy on a single hit. Somebody in another thread mentioned giving combat advantage to the enemy you fumbled against until the end of your next turn. That doesn't seem too bad.
It's also, as I said, not remotely like anything I have experience. The system I have actually seen in place was just as I described above (critical fumble = lose a limb), and every system I have heard discussed in real life has been at least that bad.
"Balance" means that if you have the chance of critting your enemies, then your enemies have either an equal chance of critting you or some other benefit to balance out. It does not necessarily mean that you have equal chances critical hits or critical misses.
No, you are simply abstracting a general view from a specific instance in an attempt to undermine the point by ridiculing it, and by extension me.
Clearly not.
Now, this is not meant as a flame.
However, from your posts: it seems to me that you would have more fun playing a game like World of Warcraft(or another video game in the RPG genre, I like EQ2 myself) than D&D(or at least D&D that is not house-ruled to offer several chances of obtaining bonuses and other positive effects with little to no chances for the opposite negatives and penalties.)
Which is perfectly fine and there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing D&D that way, that is the single great thing about D&D: the fact that it can be changed and house-ruled to make it as fun as possible for each group that plays it
Which means it's just silly to tell someone their way of playing is 'wrong' or the house-rules that they perfer are 'bad.'
Now, this is not meant as a flame.
Why is it that whenever anyone says thing like this, they immediately follow it up with statement to the contrary? ;)
However, from your posts: it seems to me that you would have more fun playing a game like World of Warcraft(or another video game in the RPG genre, I like EQ2 myself) than D&D(or at least D&D that is not house-ruled to offer several chances of obtaining bonuses and other positive effects with little to no chances for the opposite negatives and penalties.)
Then you "gather" incorrectly, in pretty much every conceivable way.
Which is perfectly fine and there is absolutely nothing wrong with playing D&D that way, that is the single great thing about D&D: the fact that it can be changed and house-ruled to make it as fun as possible for each group that plays it
Agreed.
Which means it's just silly to tell someone their way of playing is 'wrong' or the house-rules that they perfer are 'bad.'
No, it isn't. Fumble rules are demonstrably bad. Whether you enjoy them or not is a separate issue altogether.
You suggesting I implied the position form the latter is simply a poor attempt to discredit my point by association.
Speaking as a game designer, though... every fumble system I've ever seen falls into one of two categories:
- The sort here, where highly-experienced melee combatants have the biggest chance to screw up. Mechanically, these are unbalanced simply because of the way they punish higher level (ie more experienced) characters. These typically have some semblance of "roll a 1 you miss and roll to confirm; if the confirmation roll also misses, you do bad and nasty things to yourself." Sometimes they have little tweaks, but at its base, that's the system. This is patently unfair to the melee warrior, who already has a hard enough time keeping up with the wizard, psion, sorcerer, druid, or cleric (not necessarily in that order ;) ).
From a design-perspective, it's a bad thing because it punishes a player for doing exactly what his character is supposed to be good at -- swinging a big-ass sword. - Some folks have spent a great deal of effort to put together systems where the character's skill (that is, their BAB) reduces the chance for a fumble. While I can't recall the exact system, I have seen one system that worked out so that the level 1 wizard wielding a dagger or crossbow fumbled more often than the level 20 barbarian with the greataxe. The problem was that the system was pretty complex. On paper, it looked great. You could easily plug in numbers and see the potential outcomes and all that good stuff. Yet when you tried to use it at the table, the calculations were just too involved to do quickly, and game play crawled to a halt while you did the math and all that good stuff.
From a design-perspective, this sort of mechanic has balance - the low level wizard is much more likely to fumble - but it caused your table to come to a halt, which is a Very Bad Thing(tm) and something all game designers should (in an ideal world) seek to avoid.
Yes, it's possible to make a mechanically balanced fumble system. In every instance I've seen, though, balance comes at the cost of speed. Now, I admit that the sample size involved (one
) is really small, so maybe I just haven't seen the right system yet.No, it isn't. Fumble rules are demonstrably bad.
Again, a matter of opinion. And I agree that most are indeed bad.
Critical miss fumble rules not only disproportionately affect PCs, but what worse they also disproportionately affect certain classes. For instance in 3.5 fumble rules further screw over non-caster melee characters, which hardly need more mechanics reducing their power and effectiveness. Not only can casters tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, much of the time they don’t need to make a single die roll to do it. Seriously when does a wizard ever need to swing a dagger past level 3?
Critical fumbles are just bad rules design, and stating the obvious is not meta gaming or whining. If you want to up the difficulty of a game use tougher monsters, then at the least players can feel a sense of accomplishment when they lose an arm saving a village from the BBEG (and getting the appropriate story and game rewards for such a challenge).
That's why you have confirm rolls mitigate that. I'm just saying.
That being said, I would NEVER advocate something that allowed a character to accidently dismember themselves or their allies just because of a bad attack roll. That makes absolutely no sense. If a good mechanic is poorly implemented, who's fault is it? The mechanic, or the DM?
You are projecting motivations that do not exist.
The notion that fumbles applying equally to monsters/NPCs and PCs is fair - as in equitable, not the "it's not fair!" whining you are implying - is nonsense as monsters/NPCs serve entirely different functions. Fumbles matter not one iota to an NPC or monster, whereas the worse the fumble system the more negatively it impacts the entire play experience.
Why do you feel the need to make thinly-veiled insults and pejorative attacks against those who understand something you do not?
Well, my caricaturization was almost a direct quote from this very thread.
Also, I'm not implying anything -- I'm stating it outright. Instead of simply making observations and stating perceptions, I have also drawn conclusions and made judgements based on those observations. Either you concider my conclusions valid, or you don't. If you don't, then there is no reason to take offense. If you are taking offense, then not only have you attributed validity to my position, but you have also admitted guilt (at least on some small level) to the offense(s) that I have asserted.
It's nothing personal; don't take it as such -- it's just my general thoughts on matters. If you choose not to agree with my position(s), then I just chalk it up to us having different philosophical approaches to the game -- I'm not making a value judgement as to your person. I would suggest developing some more "natural armor", so to speak.
---------- ---------------- ------------ ----------------
Now, back to the OP:
I'm sure this has been mentioned already; if it has, then it bares repeating:
This is probably more suited to a "crappy DM" thread, but: Having mechanics that affect the players, but not applying the same mechanic to NPC's, monsters, etc. (given my latest debate, it seems appropriate).
Also, my current DM has all kinds of stuff that drives the whole group up a wall -- most of them are to show-off his "cool setting"
(all it really does is railroad play styles):- sorcerers must take "dragon heritage" in order for their magic to work normally. He "balances" that with expanding the list of available spells.
- spontanious casters are hunted down and exterminated -- unless you have your bluff skill maxed. (you know, to make people believe that you actually prepare your spells -- receive a penalty if you don't have a "spellbook" prop)
- If you have any "craft" feats, and anyone finds out, you will be hunted down and put in the service of the king for the rest of your life.
- all sorts of mandatory racial variants -- too many to mention. The only standard races he left alone was human and halfling.
Again, a matter of opinion. And I agree that most are indeed bad.
If I were ever to see a good one I would revise my opinion, but going on close to 26 years now and it's yet to happen.
It's nothing personal; don't take it as such -- it's just my general thoughts on matters.
Yes, how could one possibly construe "It's also kinda cry-baby" as anything but a well-considered philosophical position?
If you choose not to agree with my position(s), then I just chalk it up to us having different philosophical approaches to the game -- I'm not making a value judgement as to your person.
Fair enough.
I would suggest developing some more "natural armor", so to speak.
Pointing out that you are insulting people does not mean I was insulted or lack "natural armor", but just cos you didn't hit the mark doesn't mean you didn't throw the dart.
Also, my current DM has all kinds of stuff that drives the whole group up a wall -- most of them are to show-off his "cool setting"
- sorcerers must take "dragon heritage" in order for their magic to work normally. He "balances" that with expanding the list of available spells.
- spontanious casters are hunted down and exterminated -- unless you have your bluff skill maxed. (you know, to make people believe that you actually prepare your spells -- receive a penalty if you don't have a "spellbook" prop)
- If you have any "craft" feats, and anyone finds out, you will be hunted down and put in the service of the king for the rest of your life.
- all sorts of mandatory racial variants -- too many to mention. The only standard races he left alone was human and halfling.
I would just like to say that a lot of the rules in this thread do not seem "bad" provided that players know about them ahead of time. For example, the rules mentioned above do sound like they would help lend to an interesting setting. I might even want to play a spontaneous caster, just to see what happens. I would be most irritated if I showed up to the campaign and was told all of this after I had spent two hours devising a cool bard the night before though.
I guess I am saying that there is a difference to me between house rules that only exist for a setting and house rules that are intended to change the system from then on. If you want to severely impede sorcerers because it fits with the setting, that's fine because it makes the game more interesting for sorcerer players who like a challenge and helps with immersion in your unique setting. If you want to severely impede sorcerers forever just for the hell of it, that is a stupid house rule.
One of the worst house rules I ever came across was Crit fumble = broken weapon. SO let me get this straight, I can snap an enchanted adamantium bastard sword in half, bespite having a STR of 6?! Sweet! Next round I'm grabbing a baddie and using HIM as my weapon! >
maybe you should talk to this guy.
what makes that so funny is that he JUST started that thread.
I would just like to say that a lot of the rules in this thread do not seem "bad" provided that players know about them ahead of time. For example, the rules mentioned above do sound like they would help lend to an interesting setting. I might even want to play a spontaneous caster, just to see what happens. I would be most irritated if I showed up to the campaign and was told all of this after I had spent two hours devising a cool bard the night before though.
I guess I am saying that there is a difference to me between house rules that only exist for a setting and house rules that are intended to change the system from then on. If you want to severely impede sorcerers because it fits with the setting, that's fine because it makes the game more interesting for sorcerer players who like a challenge and helps with immersion in your unique setting. If you want to severely impede sorcerers forever just for the hell of it, that is a stupid house rule.
Well said.
I would just like to say that a lot of the rules in this thread do not seem "bad" provided that players know about them ahead of time. For example, the rules mentioned above do sound like they would help lend to an interesting setting. I might even want to play a spontaneous caster, just to see what happens. I would be most irritated if I showed up to the campaign and was told all of this after I had spent two hours devising a cool bard the night before though.
I guess I am saying that there is a difference to me between house rules that only exist for a setting and house rules that are intended to change the system from then on. If you want to severely impede sorcerers because it fits with the setting, that's fine because it makes the game more interesting for sorcerer players who like a challenge and helps with immersion in your unique setting. If you want to severely impede sorcerers forever just for the hell of it, that is a stupid house rule.
good point, and well taken.
I guess you just gotta know the guy. He has a very specific type of play style, and expects other people to have the same. He's really good at fluffing things up (and it is rather interesting), but at the core, the rules are to force a player to play/build their characters a certain way, and the setting fluff is just cover for that.
I don't like being told how to play.
This is also the same guy who looks to go out of his way to subvert other DM's settings, and tells them how to run their games.
I don't like being told how to run my game.
If they are able to fix it, then why bother doing it at all? Where is the net gain?
Why bother to cause any hit point damage that kill doesn't someone? Inflict statuses like Blind or Nauseated ? Use trip? Those are all examples of temporary conditions that can be fixed. The resource dedication in fixing them (in terms of actions, spells, or items) are all different but they can be fixed.
An ability that say, removed an arm or a leg is really quite similar once you get to a stage in the game it can be readily remedied.
It provides a measurable combat disadvantage (missing an arm, no casting with something in your hand, no TWF, THWs) for the duration it's in effect. If you're looking at a group with ready access to regenerate, it has a duration between 1 battle & 1 day (if they have it prepared or not). It's not going to crush character growth or be a huge crippling action for a long time, but it does do something.
The bigger reason is probably just the coolness of it. It's not just angry beast. It's a angry beast that can bite your freakin' arm off. Which is damned badass if you ask me.
Why bother to cause any hit point damage that kill doesn't someone? Inflict statuses like Blind or Nauseated ? Use trip? Those are all examples of temporary conditions that can be fixed. The resource dedication in fixing them (in terms of actions, spells, or items) are all different but they can be fixed.
An ability that say, removed an arm or a leg is really quite similar once you get to a stage in the game it can be readily remedied.
It provides a measurable combat disadvantage (missing an arm, no casting with something in your hand, no TWF, THWs) for the duration it's in effect. If you're looking at a group with ready access to generate, it has a duration between 1 battle & 1 day (if they have it prepared or not). It's not going to crush character growth or be a huge crippling action for a long time, but it does do something.
The bigger reason is probably just the coolness of it. It's not just angry beast. It's a angry beast that can bite your freakin' arm off. Which is damned badass if you ask me.
Well said!!
Why bother to cause any hit point damage that kill doesn't someone? Inflict statuses like Blind or Nauseated ? Use trip? Those are all examples of temporary conditions that can be fixed. The resource dedication in fixing them (in terms of actions, spells, or items) are all different but they can be fixed.
An ability that say, removed an arm or a leg is really quite similar once you get to a stage in the game it can be readily remedied.
It provides a measurable combat disadvantage (missing an arm, no casting with something in your hand, no TWF, THWs) for the duration it's in effect. If you're looking at a group with ready access to regenerate, it has a duration between 1 battle & 1 day (if they have it prepared or not). It's not going to crush character growth or be a huge crippling action for a long time, but it does do something.
The bigger reason is probably just the coolness of it. It's not just angry beast. It's a angry beast that can bite your freakin' arm off. Which is damned badass if you ask me.
Which one di you find funny? :D
You all say Meta-Gaming like it's a bad thing...
Too much meta is usually bad. but some really isn't, especially if you're playing someone with knowledge skills and a high intelligence, or don't want to waste hours devising battle strategies beforehand.
the only real issue I have with it is when such OOC stuff causes a break in versimilitude. my goal is to be as "real" about it as possible without overly complicating things. if I, as a character, have a real threat of something bad happening, that ups the suspense and excitement -- and the same can be said for any sort of "real" uncertainty.
Not sure if this counts has a house rule, but my first DM did it all the FREAKIN time. This was 2e and every game would start with our characters naked in the woods. When questioned about this his answer would be that this is the way all D&D games start.
maybe he just had some sort of wierd fettish. perhaps the thought of a bunch of naked PC's sitting in the woods did something for him that he just didn't tell you about. :D
Too much meta is usually bad. but some really isn't, especially if you're playing someone with knowledge skills and a high intelligence, or don't want to waste hours devising battle strategies beforehand.
Even with average at best mental scores, I think a character should be allowed a fair amount of "OOC" planning/discussion. Why?
Your characters, even at 1st level have far more training & experience in their field than your average player ever would. This only becomes more pronounced as they gain levels. Sure you kind of "Observe" the adventure from an abstracted level, but down on the field your character is really having first hand experience the system can't strictly simulate for you.
Your characters would have a much deeper and intuitive understanding of their abilties and surroundings, no matter how much your DM goes into detail. Some "Metagaming" between turns, serves to simulate what your character's could tell each other with body language and a quick nod.
Which one di you find funny? :D
Well, to be honest, I'm not sure which is funnier: always starting off nekkid in the forest, or him saying every game starts that way!
Not sure if this counts has a house rule, but my first DM did it all the FREAKIN time. This was 2e and every game would start with our characters naked in the woods. When questioned about this his answer would be that this is the way all D&D games start.
...I think he's been watching too much D&D porn... Tell me, a few minutes in, did a pizza delivery gnoll show up? :D
Besides, it was my understanding that all D&D games start at a tavern. :P
...I think he's been watching too much D&D porn... Tell me, a few minutes in, did a pizza delivery gnoll show up? :D
Besides, it was my understanding that all D&D games start at a tavern. :P
Okay, we'll compromise. We'll start the game naked in a tavern.
...
What?
...I think he's been watching too much D&D porn... Tell me, a few minutes in, did a pizza delivery gnoll show up? :D
Besides, it was my understanding that all D&D games start at a tavern. :P
I suppose one should be grateful he didn't demand everyone actually roleplay being naked.
Then again, it could be fun.
In 2.0, I was a player and Psionicist. The DM let me open a D-Door just below an enemy we couldn't hope to beat, and I opened another right above that door. When I let loose, the fall speed was >1300mph and the creature took like 200d20 dmg and died.
He really shouldn'a let me get away with that
Yeah! Especially considering the physics of terminal velocity, your little boss shouldnt be 'falling' that fast, Unless there's something im missing with D-Doors
maybe he just had some sort of wierd fettish. perhaps the thought of a bunch of naked PC's sitting in the woods did something for him that he just didn't tell you about. :D
Maybe so considering who it was, he also had some... interesting ideas about why elves got a bonus to charisma.
Well, to be honest, I'm not sure which is funnier: always starting off nekkid in the forest, or him saying every game starts that way!
Yeah...
Okay, we'll compromise. We'll start the game naked in a tavern.
...
What?
Wouldn't that make it a strip club?
Too much meta is usually bad. but some really isn't, especially if you're playing someone with knowledge skills and a high intelligence, or don't want to waste hours devising battle strategies beforehand.
I think the better question is how do you define Meta-Gaming? I know some extreme people who say knowing your HP, moving into "flanking" position for a +2 to hit, knowing a creature is resistant or vulnerable, and so on are all forms of Meta-Gaming.
The problem I think is the rules are in place to help represent how things would react yet some people think the characters should be oblivious to this knowledge when in reality things like "flanking" someone is a common military tactics because it provides an advantage this is represented in game as +2 to hit. Curtain monsters are known to be resistant or vulnerable to curtain types of elements thus it would fall under common knowledge. Most of the stuff while it may seem to break the 4th wall so to speak is nothing more the game mechanics meant to represent how much better or worst things are when compared which is why they have numerical values. Just like you can go to a gun store and talking about rate of fire, penetration potential, accuracy, and etc of the fire arms they sell so do could your character talk about the damage potential and accuracy of their magical mid-evil weapon.
Personally I think meta gaming should only refer to completely OOC information. Any game mechanics are simply part of the natural world the characters inhabit and thus they would be aware of them. OOC information would fall under the category of things like I know the next room if full of goblins cause the DM is my friend and let it slip before the adventure so I'm gonna let the rest of the party go in first. Or the DM having a monster with variable resistance change to fire resistant at the start of the battle because he knows most of the players attacks are fire based instead of waiting until after the players make some fire attacks. Or having the monsters all start picking up fire resistant gear.
Snip.
I pretty much parrot this. I think of metagaming as more like the example given in the SW Saga book. "There's got to be a mechanism to stop the retracting floor on the other side of the chasm ... because the DM wouldn't put us in a trap we couldn't get out of."
When you roll a one, roll again; take your result as a negative number (in other words, if you roll a 1 and then a 5, you're attack roll is a negative 5).
When you roll a critical threat, roll again, and add the result to the first roll (in other words, if you roll a twenty and then a fifteen, your attack roll would be a 35).
If you exceed a monster's defense by 20 or more, it's a critical hit; if you miss by 20 or more, you grant combat advantage until the start of your next turn. People who can't hit for crap are far more likely to end up granting combat advantage, and people who hit great are much more likely to get a critical hit.
Plus the math stays the same, if not better. Exceeding a target's defense by 20 means rolling a 31, assuming a 50% hit rate (ie, an 11 or better); using this system, this means you roll an 11 or better on the second roll, which corresponds exactly to rolling an 11 or better on a confirmation roll. It's exactly like the default, except that Lowly McWeak the Kobold no longer hits Pun-Pun 5% of the time. And, using the critical miss rules, Pun-Pun doesn't automatically miss 5% of the time.
IMO, this is an epic solution.
And still it has the innate problem that the most skilled high level melee combatants have fumble chances the most often, which is stupid.
And always the question, in what way does this make the game more fun?
I don't play "fair". Fair's a lie, and anyone who tells you different is trying to either sell you a product or a religion.
It's all balanced, IMHO. Spells can critical or fumble, too. Ever seen a Warlock fumble an Eldritch Blast? It can be epic.
It adds a modicum of risk that my players really get into. Therefore, it's fun.
It's all balanced, IMHO. Spells can critical or fumble, too.
How precisely do
Color Spray or Mage Armor or Grease or Sleep or Summon Monster N or Glitterdust or Web or Mirror Image or Blur or Displacement or Invisibility or Blindness/Deafness or Alter Self or Stinking Cloud or Fly or Sleet Storm or Hold Person or Solid Fog or Black Tentacles or Confusion or Fear or Stoneshape or Polymorph or Cloudkill or Wall of Stone or Dominate Person or Baleful Polymorph or Overland Flight or [List Continues in the fashion for some time, longer if we're dealing with spells beyond core. Not to mention what the poster just forgot to list off the top of his head.].. or Shapechange or Gate or Timestop.
Fumble, exactly? The caster has nothing to fumble. Nevermind that the vast majority of these effects are far stronger for their level than ANYTHING some dink waving around a silly of piece of metal can do in his wildest dreams. Let's make him drop his puny little toy 5% of the time, just to rub it in.*.
PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER (no drawbacks)'
SWINGING AROUND A POINTY STICK (ow I poked my eye out)
*as always. This comes with the disclaimer "If you enjoy it good for you and your group. Glad you're Having fun" I'm still going to enjoy being stubborn on the point, however.
How precisely do
Color Spray or Mage Armor or Grease or Sleep or Summon Monster N or Glitterdust or Web or Mirror Image or Blur or Displacement or Invisibility or Blindness/Deafness or Alter Self or Stinking Cloud or Fly or Sleet Storm or Hold Person or Solid Fog or Black Tentacles or Confusion or Fear or Stoneshape or Polymorph or Cloudkill or Wall of Stone or Dominate Person or Baleful Polymorph or Overland Flight or [List Continues in the fashion for some time, longer if we're dealing with spells beyond core. Not to mention what the poster just forgot to list off the top of his head.].. or Shapechange or Gate or Timestop.
Fumble, exactly? The caster has nothing to fumble. Nevermind that the vast majority of these effects are far stronger for their level than ANYTHING some dink waving around a silly of piece of metal can do in his wildest dreams. Let's make him drop his puny little toy 5% of the time, just to rub it in.*.
PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER (no drawbacks)'
SWINGING AROUND A POINTY STICK (ow I poked my eye out)
*as always. This comes with the disclaimer "If you enjoy it good for you and your group. Glad you're Having fun" I'm still going to enjoy being stubborn on the point, however.
Only an idiot would have players having a 5% chance to drop a weapon. A fumble requires confirmation.
I personally only have casters roll to test a fumble after a ranged-touch or touch spell fires off.
I suppose you could apply it to all of the spells, but then you would need to apply to to Cleave and Great Cleave (cleave yourself?), Turn Undead (Make them bum-rush you?), Casting Defensively (You're too stupid to cast a spell this turn?), Weapon Finesse (You opt to fight more gracefully, but stab yourself in the eye before you get a chance to swing), Sneak Attack (You tried to be sneaky and get in another attack, but before you can, you trip on your shoelace and stab your friend in the gnads)......
If your DM doesn't like the idea of thinking, and neither do the players, then yes, critical failures are not for you.
And if your DM isn't running creatures with SR when you have a decent caster in the party, they're bypassing the entire system built-in to 3.5 and lower that is made to handle the balance issue that exists without it.
Edit: A Caster has nothing to fumble? Try a fumble on Melf's Acid Arrow.....that one will burn the eyes out of a mage on a bad roll.
Personally, I like playing blasters. But once again, critical fumbles just aren't balanced for all casters. Critical fumbles where you "singe your fingers" would be terrible for me. If I have d4s for hit dice, I can't get away with dropping a disintegrate on myself (and that has happened in a game I play that uses critical fumbles). A fighter, on the other hand, is slightly inconvenienced when his sword falls out of his hand.
If I have d4s for hit dice, I can't get away with dropping a disintegrate on myself (and that has happened in a game I play that uses critical fumbles). A fighter, on the other hand, is slightly inconvenienced when his sword falls out of his hand.
Well said.
And really, if you're that worried about a fighter's ability to hang onto their weapon, 1: give them chained gauntlets so they can't drop it and 2: Add a reflex save if the crit fail is confirmed.
Only an idiot would have players having a 5% chance to drop a weapon. A fumble requires confirmation.
So what? a 2.5% Chance, 0.25%? 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance? It doesn't really matter. As no matter what you're just rubbing salt in the wounds it's just a matter of how much salt.
I personally only have casters roll to test a fumble after a ranged-touch or touch spell fires off.
Everyone on board the irrelevance train. Chugga-Choo-Choo! Let's all sound the That-has-no-bearing-in-the-slightest-on-what-I-posted-whistle Toot Toot! Next Stop: It Doesn't Matter Town!! Population: A vast majority of the best spells in the game. (You responded to a list of non-touch spells with a "You can fumble on touch attacks" not an effective comeback)
I suppose you could apply it to all of the spells, but then you would need to apply to to Cleave and Great Cleave (cleave yourself?), Turn Undead (Make them bum-rush you?), Casting Defensively (You're too stupid to cast a spell this turn?), Weapon Finesse (You opt to fight more gracefully, but stab yourself in the eye before you get a chance to swing), Sneak Attack (You tried to be sneaky and get in another attack, but before you can, you trip on your shoelace and stab your friend in the gnads)......
"Hey let's play a heroic fantasy game, maybe dungeons & dragons?"
"No. I'd rather play as a gaggle of uncoordinated dips. We can still D&D "Dinguses & Dorks"'
Seriously. Who needs monsters when you have heros like that? The baddies should just stand back until those losers spontaneously combust. They critically failed their existence check.
And if your DM isn't running creatures with SR when you have a decent caster in the party, they're bypassing the entire system built-in to 3.5 and lower that is made to handle the balance issue that exists without it.
SR tends to only be relevant when you're running one big monster. Trying to run multiple lower CR creatures just nets you a bunch of guys with SR Joke. As such trying to use SR as a counter limits encounter choices severely. Even then, getting around SR is far from the biggest challenge in the world for a caster.
Edit: A Caster has nothing to fumble? Try a fumble on Melf's Acid Arrow.....that one will burn the eyes out of a mage on a bad roll.
Melf's Acid Arrow? Really? Sure he doesn't have anything better to do? Like smashing his head into a wall?
EDIT: As always, enjoy what you will. I'm just here for the argument.
in 3.5e and below, if it's being run correctly, any character cresting level 15 should be RARE. It should occur in a long campaign, or over a series of them where the same character moves from the end of one campaign to the beginning of another.
The whole idea was always that a 1st level character was basically just some dude that decided one day they wanted to do something with their life. They aren't heroic yet and have to get that experience and strength over time and such. Considering they risk their lives constantly, a character cresting level 10 alive should be a definite "maybe". Fighters have the early-game advantage and casters have the late-game advantage, it's true. There's a reason wizards are squishy. and not many should be living to see level 20.
So what? a 2.5% Chance, 0.25%? 0.00000000000000000000000001% chance? It doesn't really matter. As no matter what you're just rubbing salt in the wounds it's just a matter of how much salt.
Everyone on board the irrelevance train. Chugga-Choo-Choo! Let's all sound the That-has-no-bearing-in-the-slightest-on-what-I-posted-whistle Toot Toot! Next Stop: It Doesn't Matter Town!! Population: A vast majority of the best spells in the game. (You responded to a list of non-touch spells with a "You can fumble on touch attacks" not an effective comeback)
"Hey let's play a heroic fantasy game, maybe dungeons & dragons?"
"No. I'd rather play as a gaggle of uncoordinated dips. We can still D&D "Dinguses & Dorks"'
Seriously. Who needs monsters when you have heros like that? The baddies should just stand back until those losers spontaneously combust. They critically failed their existence check.
SR tends to only be relevant when you're running one big monster. Trying to run multiple lower CR creatures just nets you a bunch of guys with SR Joke. As such trying to use SR as a counter limits encounter choices severely. Even then, getting around SR is far from the biggest challenge in the world for a caster.
Melf's Acid Arrow? Really? Sure he doesn't have anything better to do? Like smashing his head into a wall?
EDIT: As always, enjoy what you will. I'm just here for the argument.
argue all you want -- but there's no need to be a total
I pretty much parrot this. I think of metagaming as more like the example given in the SW Saga book. "There's got to be a mechanism to stop the retracting floor on the other side of the chasm ... because the DM wouldn't put us in a trap we couldn't get out of."
Yea that is definitely a good example of mega gaming using OOC info. Though in the case of some DMs I've had in the past not very good meta gaming cause it was more like "Oh great this trap probably doesn't have an off switch either." in some of the games I played in. (Crazy DMs)
ex:
Rule: high ac
IG: It is rumored only the most skilled hero's sword can even touch its flesh.
Rule: High HP
IG: It is rumored about this monster that it can take the blows of a thousand men and yet live.
and so on and so forth.
My point is before throwing around metagame stop and think if it really is or not.
I don't play "fair". Fair's a lie, and anyone who tells you different is trying to either sell you a product or a religion.
Or, you know, trying to play a game.
AI'm just here for the argument.
No you aren't… ;)
You know, I think one of the big issues here is that the "fighter fans" are all asshurt about high-level casters....
With an opening that decries those who posit an opposing position as being "asshurt" then what follows must certainly be a well considered opinion that merits full attention and consideration.
in 3.5e and below, if it's being run correctly, any character cresting level 15 should be RARE.
Correctly? That is unmitigated arrogance.
As for your Level 15 rule - please see the rules about Epic level characters (in 3.5) and the equivalent subject matter (under different names) in all the previous editions. In AD&D, for instance, the spell progression tables for Clerics and Wizards goes up through Level 29 and the Illusionist through 26... now why would that be in there is the expectation was that no character could get there?
It should occur in a long campaign, or over a series of them where the same character moves from the end of one campaign to the beginning of another.
Unless the DM decides to start the campaign at medium, or high, or epic level.
Correctly? That is unmitigated arrogance.
As for your Level 15 rule - please see the rules about Epic level characters (in 3.5) and the equivalent subject matter (under different names) in all the previous editions. In AD&D, for instance, the spell progression tables for Clerics and Wizards goes up through Level 29 and the Illusionist through 26... now why would that be in there is the expectation was that no character could get there?
Well the thread is called WORST Houserules so what do you expect ;).
Well the thread is called WORST Houserules so what do you expect ;).
WELL said! Touche, sir. I salute you.
The 4e game I've been in since release has all this houseruled stuff and I just want to try to play the basic game and see how it goes without all the extras...
:whatsthis
Back on the original topic, personally I'm having a growing distaste for houserules that overwrite rules that haven't been tried yet.
The 4e game I've been in since release has all this houseruled stuff and I just want to try to play the basic game and see how it goes without all the extras...
:whatsthis
That is annoying, the only thing I houseruled in 4th so far, and it hasn't even come up as no one is playing humans in either of my groups(they love dragonborn) is that instead of just one +2 humans get +2 in a physical stat and +2 in a mental stat.
Back on the original topic, personally I'm having a growing distaste for houserules that overwrite rules that haven't been tried yet.
The 4e game I've been in since release has all this houseruled stuff and I just want to try to play the basic game and see how it goes without all the extras...
:whatsthis
Agreed. At least take a bite of your food before you add salt and pepper to it!
I like my 4e DM, but this is the first 4e campaign he's ever played, and he still started out by listing all his houserules. We had to roll up our stats, we don't use miniatures... he's trying his hardest to make it as close as possible to his 3e games.
Agreed. At least take a bite of your food before you add salt and pepper to it!
I like my 4e DM, but this is the first 4e campaign he's ever played, and he still started out by listing all his houserules. We had to roll up our stats, we don't use miniatures... he's trying his hardest to make it as close as possible to his 3e games.
Sounds like he really want to run 3e.
Sounds like he really want to run 3e.
...and we offered to play 3e instead, but no, he wanted to try 4e. Fine with us, we like 4e.... but of course now we're not really playing 4e.
I shouldn't complain, though. We're all having a lot of fun, and it's such a roleplay-oriented campaign that it barely matters what edition we're playing.
...and we offered to play 3e instead, but no, he wanted to try 4e. Fine with us, we like 4e.... but of course now we're not really playing 4e.
I shouldn't complain, though. We're all having a lot of fun, and it's such a roleplay-oriented campaign that it barely matters what edition we're playing.
Well that's good. So this houseruling of his is a minor annoyance and just fit in the topic.
Correctly? That is unmitigated arrogance.
You're damn skippy I'm arrogant. I earned it through experience and acts of brazen debauchery.
As for your Level 15 rule - please see the rules about Epic level characters (in 3.5) and the equivalent subject matter (under different names) in all the previous editions. In AD&D, for instance, the spell progression tables for Clerics and Wizards goes up through Level 29 and the Illusionist through 26..
For the same reason there are lines of seemingly meaningless code in every well written computer program that try and catch seemingly impossible variables. The same reason that legal documents seem to repeat themselves endlessly. C.Y.A., C.Y.A., C.Y.A.. Provide the mechanism. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should be easily, or commonly, attained. However, I never said impossible. You did.
You're damn skippy I'm arrogant. I earned it through experience and acts of brazen debauchery.
That's an evasion, not an answer. Strike 1.
For the same reason there are lines of seemingly meaningless code in every well written computer program that try and catch seemingly impossible variables. The same reason that legal documents seem to repeat themselves endlessly. C.Y.A., C.Y.A., C.Y.A..
:D Really? So then game designers intentionally waste time and effort designing elaborate game constructs with the expectation that very few people will ever use? Right... That's slightly less ridiculous than your game designer = lawyer argument. Strike 2.
Provide the mechanism. Just because it's there doesn't mean it should be easily, or commonly, attained. However, I never said impossible. You did.
Actually, I never said 'impossible' or that it should be 'easily or commonly' attained. I refuted your argument that the designers in all previous editions specifically intended for high level player characters to be rare... and you have yet to mention any specific text in the rules of previous editions that specifically states that the designers' intent was for majority of players to 'top out' at a medium level. Strike 3.
I guess that the lesson there is that there's no right or wrong beyond what your group does or doesn't enjoy.
Correctly? now why would that be in there is the expectation was that no character could get there?
I think that's rather the definition of Impossible. Just wanted to point out where you said "impossible".
As for evasion and your Strikes....you seem to think that you as a person matter to me, where it's more likely that if you were on fire, I'd **** next to you. I don't actually care enough for your judgment to matter.
I just keep posting on the thread because I feel an odd obligation to balance out the stupid and the weak with intelligence and maintenance of personal responsibility.
In regards to proper game design, I'm actually in the industry and using those standards, not yours. Which brings us to:
Really? So then game designers intentionally waste time and effort designing elaborate game constructs with the expectation that very few people will ever use? Right... That's slightly less ridiculous than your game designer = lawyer argument.
I removed your "strike" because I couldn't bring myself to respond to an argument that sounded like an angry Redneck at a Best Buy trying to return something with actual logic.
List of situations where exactly that has happened:
Hot Coffee (GTA 3)
Mysterions (Starflight)
Every easter egg ever (i.e., the gay-only beach in SimCopter)
Neverwinter Nights (The average completion level is around 17, for a video game of D&D this is high)
The old D&D video games based in the Dragonlance setting (you rarely kept the party you started with; one or two characters would last, but the rest you'd be rerolling and filling in the gaps as they fell. I feel this is relevant because the games were designed largely under the watchful gaze of TSR)
The Scarab plasma cannon in Halo 2
Antideluvians in old (i.e. not VTR) VTM
Being rich in Battletech or its companion RPG, Mechwarrior
I can keep going, but considering I recall playing maze games on an Apple IIc and playing D&D just before AD&D came out, I think this list will suffice rather than me filling up several pages.
You're damn skippy I'm arrogant. I earned it through experience and acts of brazen debauchery.
In that case carry on, sir!
Agreed. At least take a bite of your food before you add salt and pepper to it!
I like my 4e DM, but this is the first 4e campaign he's ever played, and he still started out by listing all his houserules. We had to roll up our stats, we don't use miniatures... he's trying his hardest to make it as close as possible to his 3e games.
Rolling stats is an option in 4E. 4E does not say "Thou must use miniatures or else you're playing wrong."
From everything I've seen, there's a pretty steady progression there, and getting to the point where a group is playing the just released KotG looks quite doable.
Perhaps what I can see is that in a particular campaign, there won't be a ton of level 30 people walking around. Probably somewhere in the 1-10 range.
They released the epic rules because people wanted some official rules to go with what people were already doing, playing at extremely high levels. I bet there are already games that have level 35 or 40 wossnames in. There is no limit.
Just because xp tables stop somewhere doesn't mean your game has to.
Again, to restate, there is NO wrong way to play. The aim is for everyone involved to have fun, if you can do that one thing right, bravo.
Rolling stats is an option in 4E.
...though if I plug my rolled stats into the Character Builder, it still puts up the little "status: houseruled" icon.
4E does not say "Thou must use miniatures or else you're playing wrong."
Of course not, and besides, there's no wrong way to play. All I'm saying is that he should at least give 4e RAW a try before he starts making his own changes to it. All three of his players have played 4e both with and without minis, and would rather play with them. The DM, however, has never played 4e at all other than DMing this campaign. He may have used minis in previous editions, but he still can't know with 100% certainty that he doesn't like using them in 4e.
So if epic level characters should be rare, why are they releasing the Epic modules?
I covered this already, though now you're talking about 4e releases, and 4e is designed to appeal to the crowd that abhors calculations of risk/reward, looking more for an experience where death is rare and always a result of a bad decision; where chance itself is negated by game adjustments.
It's good marketing, but it caters to a way of thinking that should be ignored and allowed to die.
From everything I've seen, there's a pretty steady progression there, and getting to the point where a group is playing the just released KotG looks quite doable.
Thus supporting my argument that 4e is appalling.
Perhaps what I can see is that in a particular campaign, there won't be a ton of level 30 people walking around. Probably somewhere in the 1-10 range.
They released the epic rules because people wanted some official rules to go with what people were already doing, playing at extremely high levels. I bet there are already games that have level 35 or 40 wossnames in. There is no limit.
That's just disturbing. That means people are reaching superhuman levels after a few month's experience. It's like being promoted to CEO after working somewhere for a year, or typing in a cheat code because you suck at puzzles and would rather bypass a puzzle section in a video game rather than get better at the puzzles. It's like letting the characters go to the gym for a month and try a new weight-loss product; they proudly announce "I lost 100lbs of fat and gained 200lbs of muscle in only 3 months!", but there's no need for "results may vary" because anyone who puts down a garden hoe and picks up a sword instantly loses their beergut and becomes a martial weapons conoisseur.
Just because xp tables stop somewhere doesn't mean your game has to.
Just because xp tables reach somewhere doesn't mean every character is supposed to reach the last field on them.
Again, to restate, there is NO wrong way to play. The aim is for everyone involved to have fun, if you can do that one thing right, bravo.
Maybe I expect too much, that people be rewarded for acts of personal responsibility and innovative thinking instead of being handed solutions and heralded as heroes for solving a rat problem in a large basement.
I consider gaming to be a very powerful form of media; from pen-and-paper to the screen, it is likely the single most influential medium for the conveyance of information (rather that the internet, which is about retrieval). Many people take their cues on social behavior or morality from games; gaming has led to a generation of people who can be moved by a well-made commerical or go seek a wargame as a method to cope with the images we see on television news and newspaper photos regularly. We are that eager for input.
I'm not saying all gamers have squishy minds, but one of the traits that makes us gamers is we are eager for interactive experiences and input. We hunger for information and immersion, and by that mechanism, many gamers walk away from the table or controller feeling as though they have "dealt with" something that was on their mind, expressed through their character. This makes them likely to repeat the behaviors later; not necessarily burning down a village to cope with anger, but perhaps the next time they run into an obstacle at work, if the sum of their social experience has taught them to expect a hand-out later, they may be surprised when a month down the line they are unemployed.
Again, this isn't true of all gamers, but 4e is essentially designed to cater to this market because it is not a small one. From a marketing standpoint, it's the outlook of the "Millenial" generation, the target audience for 4e.
Just saying, a DM who has players who get really involved in a campaign has more to think about than basic encounters; a good storyteller's story has a point to be made, and people are eager to hear what that point is, whether they play in a way that reflects their own personality or not.
I covered this already, though now you're talking about 4e releases, and 4e is designed to appeal to the crowd that abhors calculations of risk/reward, looking more for an experience where death is rare and always a result of a bad decision; where chance itself is negated by game adjustments.
It's good marketing, but it caters to a way of thinking that should be ignored and allowed to die.
Thus supporting my argument that 4e is appalling.
That's just disturbing. That means people are reaching superhuman levels after a few month's experience. It's like being promoted to CEO after working somewhere for a year, or typing in a cheat code because you suck at puzzles and would rather bypass a puzzle section in a video game rather than get better at the puzzles. It's like letting the characters go to the gym for a month and try a new weight-loss product; they proudly announce "I lost 100lbs of fat and gained 200lbs of muscle in only 3 months!", but there's no need for "results may vary" because anyone who puts down a garden hoe and picks up a sword instantly loses their beergut and becomes a martial weapons conoisseur.
Just because xp tables reach somewhere doesn't mean every character is supposed to reach the last field on them.
Maybe I expect too much, that people be rewarded for acts of personal responsibility and innovative thinking instead of being handed solutions and heralded as heroes for solving a rat problem in a large basement.
I consider gaming to be a very powerful form of media; from pen-and-paper to the screen, it is likely the single most influential medium for the conveyance of information (rather that the internet, which is about retrieval). Many people take their cues on social behavior or morality from games; gaming has led to a generation of people who can be moved by a well-made commerical or go seek a wargame as a method to cope with the images we see on television news and newspaper photos regularly. We are that eager for input.
I'm not saying all gamers have squishy minds, but one of the traits that makes us gamers is we are eager for interactive experiences and input. We hunger for information and immersion, and by that mechanism, many gamers walk away from the table or controller feeling as though they have "dealt with" something that was on their mind, expressed through their character. This makes them likely to repeat the behaviors later; not necessarily burning down a village to cope with anger, but perhaps the next time they run into an obstacle at work, if the sum of their social experience has taught them to expect a hand-out later, they may be surprised when a month down the line they are unemployed.
Again, this isn't true of all gamers, but 4e is essentially designed to cater to this market because it is not a small one. From a marketing standpoint, it's the outlook of the "Millenial" generation, the target audience for 4e.
Just saying, a DM who has players who get really involved in a campaign has more to think about than basic encounters; a good storyteller's story has a point to be made, and people are eager to hear what that point is, whether they play in a way that reflects their own personality or not.
Medium-high level parties have free fun of resurrection mechanics, teleport, and the like. if it becomes an issue with finding enemies of sufficient power to level, that's easily solved. in my saturday D&D game I play in, we started at 5th level, and in about a year and a half we've reached 13th level. Normally this would be even faster, but we play for just 3 hours and it's via IRC so everythng takes time. my old sunday D&D game I played in, we went from level 6 and hit about level 21 in 2 years, and were about 2/3rds done with the campaign.
Usually on the saturday's game bewteen competent, and high CR foes (as a level 13 party of 4, we stopped a 16th level half-gold-dragon paladin, a CR 16 wizard and cleric in one big battle in our last fight) so there you may see how parties get stronger, in LEAPS. usually one full session or two of fighting is enough instantly for a level between us.
Also, Remember in 3e, there is no end to the XP tables, or levels. just a new book/table you had to start looking onto for a long time.
...though if I plug my rolled stats into the Character Builder, it still puts up the little "status: houseruled" icon.
From what I understand, there's a reason for this. Read the section to the immediate right of the 'Ability Scores' section. I quote:
[u]Roll Dice[/u]
Roll 4D6 and keep the best 3 for each score. You can't roll ability scores for a character you plan to use in RPGA(r) events.
The point being, I believe, that it's possible to have one of the following three things happen in a game officially sanctioned by the RPGA:
1. Poor luck. What happens if the die-roller gives you every stat lower than a 9? Not many (If any) characters would survive a standard campaign, unless the DM is being nice about it. (I'm not saying all DMs are bad about it, but I know some that are completely unforgiving if you rolled poorly on your stats)
2. Good luck. It's quite unlikely, but I've seen the roller come up with no stat lower than a 15. Congrats, your character now has many, many strengths with very few weaknesses. Granted, you're still going to have weaknesses based on class (Defenses and skills, mainly), but they're going to be somewhat small.
3. Cheating. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, even in sanctioned events. There's no way to track how many times you've clicked that 'Roll Dice' button. No way for a judge to call you out and say that you've redone your stats 50 times until they came up a mix of 16s, 17s and 18s.
The reason its 'houseruled' is because I tend to think that DMs of casual circles tend to be more lenient than sanctioned DMs for RPGA games. Got poor luck? Just re-roll, nobody will know the difference. My own group uses a houserule to re-roll any results of a 1 or 2 while rolling stats; this keeps them at above-average, since the lowest possible result is now a 9 (Assuming 4 3 results).
They released the epic rules because people wanted some official rules to go with what people were already doing, playing at extremely high levels. I bet there are already games that have level 35 or 40 wossnames in. There is no limit.
That's just disturbing. That means people are reaching superhuman levels after a few month's experience. It's like being promoted to CEO after working somewhere for a year, or typing in a cheat code because you suck at puzzles and would rather bypass a puzzle section in a video game rather than get better at the puzzles. It's like letting the characters go to the gym for a month and try a new weight-loss product; they proudly announce "I lost 100lbs of fat and gained 200lbs of muscle in only 3 months!", but there's no need for "results may vary" because anyone who puts down a garden hoe and picks up a sword instantly loses their beergut and becomes a martial weapons conoisseur.
It is a game. A non-competitive game. No one gets any recognition outside of the game for being high level. No one gives a high five or a to the nine year old who says, "My character is 100th level and killed all the gods."
Conversely, no one cares that you "earned" your paragon status with blood, sweat and tears. Tell us an interesting story about your character and we will listen.
Therefore, whatever is fun for everyone around a table, players and dungeon master included, is good. A gritty Call of Cthulhu style campaign where it takes two months to get to 2nd level, or a Diablo II style romp where streams of monsters yield fantastic treasures and experience.
Also, this edition has been out for a year, not a few months, so I well imagine that some parties have adventured enough to reach beyond epic levels. Kudos to any dungeon master who can sustain his creative energies for a campaign that long.
If someone says they want to run a game that starts at level 25, they become morally reprehensible?
The only way to cheat in D&D is to lie about your dice rolls. Everything else is sitting around with friends and having fun.
There is nothing wrong with making houserules for level 108 characters if that's what you want to do.
There's nothing wrong with staying level 1 for 23 sessions either.
The point here is FUN, not DO IT RIGHT.
There are many issues I have personally with the inflated sense of entitlement that many people have. I do not think that anyone's D&D character is going to be one of those issues.
Although if someone came into the store I work at and demanded an outside-of-warranty return because they were a level 28 paladin, omg awesome.
EDIT: Maximum agreeness with Hippolyte. well said.
Let's just say I've never been fond of speed chess. I realize the value of streamlining combat, but still...
I know it dosent seem like much, but seriously it has sped up the game in the first session with little problems when we tried it... not to mention you wernt there that game and havent even tried it yet! *sigh*
You know Skyhoof, i do read the forums as well.
I was afraid of that. No offense meant towards you directly of course, it just doesn't sound that good IMO. It may prove to be alright, but I have a personal vendetta towards time limits.Recently one of my DMs has had the idea of limiting combat turns to 60 seconds. If you don't do what you want in that minute, too bad for you.
Let's just say I've never been fond of speed chess. I realize the value of streamlining combat, but still...
60 seconds? is that really so bad?
In a 3.5 game that I played a while ago, the novice DM ruled that throwing a simple lantern dealt 2d10 points of fire damage with a 15 foot splash radius. *shudders* those were dark days, my friends.
What, did you guys buy up all the lanterns you could find in the next town? I certainly would have. best way to show a DM their rule is silly, is to forcibly abuse it. :D
60 seconds? is that really so bad?
I think the biggest thing would be for players who need to look up rules, or clarify spell effects (Especially casters). Not to mention at higher levels, magic items with complex effects and abilities may come into play, and start affecting things. It's not bad, no...but the main problem is whether or not the player has to spend those 60 seconds rifling through books for a rule.
Other than that, 60 seconds is a long time for a turn, even. The worst example I could think of off the top of my head would be if a caster uses Prismatic Spray and hits a ridiculous number of enemies. This is a great time waster as he and the DM individually roll off to see spell effects and whether or not saves are made. (Happens all too often in my current group)
It is a game. A non-competitive game.
O.o? o.O?
Your players are at least competing with themselves or with the mechanics of a world around them.....often, they are competing with each other.No one gets any recognition outside of the game for being high level. No one gives a high five or a sh*t to the nine year old who says, "My character is 100th level and killed all the gods."
Sheesh I'd hope not. The very thought is appalling.
Conversely, no one cares that you "earned" your paragon status with blood, sweat and tears. Tell us an interesting story about your character and we will listen.
Do people have no self-respect anymore? Is that why they scream "It's too haaaaaard. I wanna be a winner tooooo!"? It shouldn't have anything to do with anyone but you and those in the game you are playing. This is what we get for handing out trophies to the kids who sucked at whatever sport just because "in the end, everyone is a winner". I'm not sure why it matters what others think, but if you can be comfortable with success you haven't earned, you're not much of a person. Games are microcosms and simulations surrounding aspects of the human psyche; good or evil, I'd rather be around a purist who feels their success must be earned any day. It's how I DM, and it's why people in my area have quit other campaigns and joined mine from time to time.
Therefore, whatever is fun for everyone around a table, players and dungeon master included, is good. A gritty Call of Cthulhu style campaign where it takes two months to get to 2nd level, or a Diablo II style romp where streams of monsters yield fantastic treasures and experience.
This I can agree with. I'm just saying I don't associate with the second type, and I think reinforcing the behavior is unwise and bad for people.
Also, this edition has been out for a year, not a few months, so I well imagine that some parties have adventured enough to reach beyond epic levels. Kudos to any dungeon master who can sustain his creative energies for a campaign that long.
Now that I will agree with. If you've earned your epic level and had your moments where you nearly died doing it, then kudos to you, and kudos to the DM who took you there.
The reason its 'houseruled' is because I tend to think that DMs of casual circles tend to be more lenient than sanctioned DMs for RPGA games. Got poor luck? Just re-roll, nobody will know the difference. My own group uses a houserule to re-roll any results of a 1 or 2 while rolling stats; this keeps them at above-average, since the lowest possible result is now a 9 (Assuming 4 3 results).
I'm not denying that rolling stats is still allowed. It's in the PHB, page 18, Method 3. But being method 3, it's obviously not the method WOTC is trying to encourage, and I agree with them. I can't actually complain - I believe our starting stats ended up being higher than they would have been with point buy anyway. But again, I think our DM, having never tried 4e before, should at least try the defaults when learning the new system.
In a 3.5 game that I played a while ago, the novice DM ruled that throwing a simple lantern dealt 2d10 points of fire damage with a 15 foot splash radius. *shudders* those were dark days, my friends.
That's not a lantern, its a friggin napalm strike!
That's not a lantern, its a friggin napalm strike!
No kidding....standard fire is 1d6 anyway and not hard to look up.
What happens when you light a fart on fire? 3d20 for 15 feet behind, Fort save or be sickened and a Reflex save for the farter to avoid scorching their own ass?
Your players are at least competing with themselves or with the mechanics of a world around them.....often, they are competing with each other.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Do people have no self-respect anymore?
Yes, but, although this might be hard for you to comprehend, "I played D&D for a long time and finally made it to 6th-level!" has absolutely nothing to do with my level of self-respect, self-actualization, or self-esteem.
but if you can be comfortable with success you haven't earned,
It's funny how you think that this applies in any meaningful way to D&D and not, say, real life.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Except that it directly retorts the prior comment about lack of competition? Where do you get your argumentative takes from...Falwell?
Yes, but, although this might be hard for you to comprehend, "I played D&D for a long time and finally made it to 6th-level!" has absolutely nothing to do with my level of self-respect, self-actualization, or self-esteem.
I...wasn't responding to you? Though that you chose to take my opinion personally does seem to contradict your statement here....
It's funny how you think that this applies in any meaningful way to D&D and not, say, real life.
....what? Didn't I make real-life situational comparisons to make that point? If you're trying to confuse others by making statements that don't apply to a conversation, you've got a talent for it. I hear Fox News is hiring.
Do people have no self-respect anymore? Is that why they scream "It's too haaaaaard. I wanna be a winner tooooo!"? It shouldn't have anything to do with anyone but you and those in the game you are playing. This is what we get for handing out trophies to the kids who sucked at whatever sport just because "in the end, everyone is a winner". I'm not sure why it matters what others think, but if you can be comfortable with success you haven't earned, you're not much of a person. Games are microcosms and simulations surrounding aspects of the human psyche; good or evil, I'd rather be around a purist who feels their success must be earned any day. It's how I DM, and it's why people in my area have quit other campaigns and joined mine from time to time.
I'm glad we have you on these boards to define for everyone what it means to earn imaginary levels in an imaginary game. You say it should require the blood of thousands of prior PC's before a player is 'ready' to be epic level (slight exaggeration of course), I say differently. But of course, if it's not YOUR system, it's wrong.
No. If it's the system defined in 4e, it celebrates handholding ****tardism. If it's a similar system that celebrates said ****tardism, then it's bad for the collective IQ of humanity.
I do believe you missed the dripping sarcasm when I saying how grateful we all are for having you around to tell us exactly how D&D should be played.
Except that it directly retorts the prior comment about lack of competition? Where do you get your argumentative takes from...Falwell?
It's nice that you think you managed to refute something, but you didn't.
D&D is not a competitive game. The PCs are certainly not competing against each other, and neither are they competing against the DM.
Unless, of course, you're one of the lousy, "I'm out to BEAT the PCs!" type DMs, in which case you win and the players get angry and stop playing, which brings me back to point one.
I...wasn't responding to you?
That's okay - I don't mind pointing out complete BS and utter claptrap regardless of who it was originally aimed at.
One does not earn nor demonstrate self-respect by playing D&D for the appropriate amount of time before reaching 6th level (or 10th level, or 60th level).
Though that you chose to take my opinion personally does seem to contradict your statement here....
And the fact that you're responding to me means that you have deep seated abandonment issues, no doubt due to the fact that your mother never hugged you often enough.Look, we can both play armchair psychologist here, or you can actually post something meaningful rather than playing the ol', "You're posting, it must be because I'm hitting close to the mark, hur hur hur" game.
....what? Didn't I make real-life situational comparisons to make that point? If you're trying to confuse others by making statements that don't apply to a conversation, you've got a talent for it. I hear Fox News is hiring.
And, again, you somehow think that there's such a thing as "earning success" in D&D that actually matters.
The fact that it took you 3 years of constant play to get to 6th level, and my DM started us off at 5th, doesn't make you somehow a better roleplayer and it certainly doesn't make you a better person.
Mindless crap that has no meaning to the argument...
Sorry, should have identified you as a troll attempting to perpetuate argument early on and not responded to the individual remarks.
No kidding....standard fire is 1d6 anyway and not hard to look up.
What happens when you light a fart on fire? 3d20 for 15 feet behind, Fort save or be sickened and a Reflex save for the farter to avoid scorching their own ass?
:rotf:
Your players are at least competing with themselves or with the mechanics of a world around them.....often, they are competing with each other.
Nay. We are adventuring. We are roleplaying. We are escaping to a fantasy world for a few hours. We are challenging our wits with some riddles and mysteries. We are pretending to be Conan or Elric or whoever else we may fancy.
Do people have no self-respect anymore? Is that why they scream "It's too haaaaaard. I wanna be a winner tooooo!"? It shouldn't have anything to do with anyone but you and those in the game you are playing. This is what we get for handing out trophies to the kids who sucked at whatever sport just because "in the end, everyone is a winner". I'm not sure why it matters what others think, but if you can be comfortable with success you haven't earned, you're not much of a person. Games are microcosms and simulations surrounding aspects of the human psyche; good or evil, I'd rather be around a purist who feels their success must be earned any day. It's how I DM, and it's why people in my area have quit other campaigns and joined mine from time to time.
Now, I do prefer gritty, grinding campaigns. But what has the imaginary difficulty of imaginary monsters in an imaginary world have to do with self-respect?
On the other hand, you might want to argue that a difficult campaign is inherently more fun and satisfying. But that too is only a matter of taste or circumstance. We all like to hear how Edison came from nowhere and became a greta inventor by his own sweat and smarts. But Hercules was no less popular a hero, even though he was born the son of a god and could strangle snakes in his cradle.
Any houserule -- where the DM isn't consistent with it. They use it to benefit them when they want, and hinder you when they want.
The guys who try to combine things never meant to be, taking stuff from 3E and adding it into 4E.
On the same thread, the ones who think 4e should REPLACE 3.xE instead of be treated as a separate game (i.e. "The REAL D&D is 4e we swearz!") because they inevitably become the "version whiner" of the group.
I consider gaming to be a very powerful form of media; from pen-and-paper to the screen, it is likely the single most influential medium for the conveyance of information (rather that the internet, which is about retrieval)...
Games are microcosms and simulations surrounding aspects of the human psyche; good or evil, I'd rather be around a purist who feels their success must be earned any day. It's how I DM, and it's why people in my area have quit other campaigns and joined mine from time to time.
Resisted the urge to interject as long as I could, but this is asinine. I know that not everyone likes 4e, and I can respect that. Arguing unironically that 4e heralds the collapse of Western society is a just a little bit ridiculous, though.
Actually, there's one thing you said that made the muscles in my neck twitch more than anything else. " Except that for players like me, we know what our characters are going to be." You can no more know that than know that when you graduate college with a degree in Programming, you'll be a Software Engineer (newsflash for those in college, you have roughly a 60% chance of actually getting a job in your field. Lower right now, only 20% of college grads this past year are even employed). Just remember, any plan is perfect until met with the enemy.
I play D&D for heroic fantasy escapism with my friends, not so I can spend Friday evenings replicating Real Life using copious dice rolls. Of course, if you prefer the latter, more power to you and your group.
This sounded intreaguing. Untill everything the players thought they knew was thrown out the window and endedup me making it up as I went along. Alot of times you had to add modifiers upon modifiers. Say something did 2d8 damage, instead it would deal 2d6+2+stat modifier damage. Or occassionaly to make things insteresting "Xd6 take the best Y result".
Overall it wasn't imabalanced. But players didn't like their books being pretty much worthless and just getting the same name attatched to something that only had a vague likeness to what it once did.
The players hated one rule I did of replacing all dice with d6s. I didn't feel like paying money for dice, and none of us really live near a game shop so we rummage together the dice we each have and bring our own. I decided screw this, I'd make a system where five bucks at the dollar store could get me a colorful array of dice.
This sounded intreaguing. Untill everything the players thought they knew was thrown out the window and endedup me making it up as I went along. Alot of times you had to add modifiers upon modifiers. Say something did 2d8 damage, instead it would deal 2d6+2+stat modifier damage. Or occassionaly to make things insteresting "Xd6 take the best Y result".
Overall it wasn't imabalanced. But players didn't like their books being pretty much worthless and just getting the same name attatched to something that only had a vague likeness to what it once did.
your ingenuity is to be commended. Seriously -- that's dedication to making things happen.
When my unit deployed to Panama for 4 months, I brought my DNG, Combat and Tactics, and some other supplemental stuff, but forgot to pack my PHB. Most of my players were relatively new, and none of us could remember any of the racial adjustments. However, I did happen to bring my copy of Dragon #206 (had stats for half-dragons) -- we had a whole party of nothing but half-dragons. Furthermore, with no spell lists (i.e., no PHB), the only "casters" that we had were Psions (because I did remember my psionic handbook) -- I was able to remember the advancement scheme for warriors and thiefs.
surprisingly, we actually had a lot of fun -- it's all a matter of perspective.
This is one of the dumbest positions I've seen people take when it comes to RPGs. And it's not just confined to D&D.
The whole point of "hit points" is so you know how healthy your character is. After all there is a huge difference between 1 HP left and 100 HP left. The difference is kinda like your bleeding to death and if a grain of sand hits you you'll fall over dead vs you have a few bumps and bruises. Now I think that the characters can tell the difference just like in real fight you would know if your simply a little banged up vs near death.
I played as 2E game where we weren't allowed to know our hit points. There was some other house rules in place though.
Hit points were changed to have nothing to do with damage. They were battle luck and skill. This you never knew how much you had.
So it went like this. You had you constitution score. You'd divide it by 4. So if you had Constitution 16 it broke down to 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16. Each catagory applied a -1 to save, attacks, damage, and nwp checks.
So you had a little chart
> 1/4 -1 1 day per point to heal
< 1/4 -1 2 days per point to heal
< 1/2 -2 1 week per point to heal
< 3/4 -4 2 weeks per point to heal
Your total hit points were equal to you Hit Point plus constitution modifier plus your constitution stat. One you hit points were used up you took damage to you stat and applied the negatives modifiers.
Cure spells healed damage to constitution and restored hit points.
The DM kept our hit points hidden except for the constitution stat and the Constitution bonus hit points.
So a fighter with 1D10 hit dice and +2 con bonus that was level 5 knew they had 10 hit points and 16 constitution points. The rest was unknown.
As the house rule went I didn't much care for not knowing how many hitpoints I had. But I did like the constitution points rule. Made the hit points seem more realistic and improved the survival for 1st level characters. But zero hit points meant dead.