Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7380524" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>The scenarios where I typically have house rules:</p><p></p><p>a) There is absolutely no balance to the rules as written, leading to numerous win buttons which are used uncreatively, usually possessed by spellcasters. 3.5 is worse than 3.0 in this, in that 3.5 made a huge number of questionable changes to spell balance without play testing them, but it also includes the general problem of things like CoDzilla or fighters being tier 5 after level six or so.</p><p></p><p>b) The core game doesn't support the diversity of character types I want in the game or which I need for my homebrew, but none of the extended rules with the same intention are well balanced or well designed. The example here would be non-lawful good 'paladins' are a mess of muddled rules in 3.5, and every combination of a spell-casting class with a non-spellcasting class requires a PrC. In general, I see the very existence of PrC's in 3.X as evidence of design failure.</p><p></p><p>c) The rules silo actions that a character could reasonably propose regardless of skill, making them things only characters with exceptional skill can try. Having a feat that lets you do things that a kindergartener could do on a playground (if not well, he could at least try it) are particularly egregious examples. These are usually changed to things that make you much better at those things, but not absolutely, and a rule created to allow anyone to try it. Actually, if any area is likely to get further revision in my house rules, it's this sort of thing that I didn't really notice early on - things like 'Find Traps' and 'Track' desperately need to be rewritten in this manner.</p><p></p><p>d) In general, 'c' is a subcase of the rules are written to be a binary pass/fail sort of thing, rather than a degree. For example, in my game there is basically no such thing as immunity to fire. Even something like a fire elemental has fire resistance 100. Very little in my rules is 'automatic' full stop. Rather things are automatic for a given ability level in normal circumstances of play. This avoids situations where as written you are dealing with unstoppable forces and immovable objects.</p><p></p><p>e) The rules are silent on very basic aspects of how something would work for very natural propositions that a player would make, or else forbid a natural proposition explicitly in a way that discourages creativity seems designed just to . This generally happens because the players aren't relying on the rules to tell them what they can do, and so propose to do something that seems reasonable but which the rules are silent on. For example, can you cast a web targeting a flying creature and if so what happens? By the rules, 3.5 web doesn't work that way. Most DMs would probably respond to a proposition like, "I cast web on the griffin's wings to try to tangle it up" by pointing out in annoyance that the rules say, "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears.", and that would be that. Or they might accuse the player of 'rules lawyering'. I'm not that DM. </p><p></p><p>f) Anything that is explicitly that way purely for game balance but has no obvious in game reason. For example non-supernatural powers that are written like '1/day, you may...' for no obvious reason but game balance, are either excluded or rewritten to have different limitations. </p><p></p><p>g) Rules that has written require the table to metagame to avoid the implication of the rules or to create rulings that stop the player from abusing the rules on the fly. An example is that the rules of 3.X allow strong characters to rapidly tunnel through stone walls with basically any object or even their bare hands, a proposition that the otherwise simple to use hardness/hit point rules don't cover. For example, it's not actually called out that a beer mug breaks when you use it to try to smash a stone wall. Most DMs are happy to just handle this with rulings, and I get that, but in doing that I find you are actually discouraging players from bringing pick axes and crowbars into a dungeon because there is no middle ground between walls of tissue paper and walls of obdurium.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7380524, member: 4937"] The scenarios where I typically have house rules: a) There is absolutely no balance to the rules as written, leading to numerous win buttons which are used uncreatively, usually possessed by spellcasters. 3.5 is worse than 3.0 in this, in that 3.5 made a huge number of questionable changes to spell balance without play testing them, but it also includes the general problem of things like CoDzilla or fighters being tier 5 after level six or so. b) The core game doesn't support the diversity of character types I want in the game or which I need for my homebrew, but none of the extended rules with the same intention are well balanced or well designed. The example here would be non-lawful good 'paladins' are a mess of muddled rules in 3.5, and every combination of a spell-casting class with a non-spellcasting class requires a PrC. In general, I see the very existence of PrC's in 3.X as evidence of design failure. c) The rules silo actions that a character could reasonably propose regardless of skill, making them things only characters with exceptional skill can try. Having a feat that lets you do things that a kindergartener could do on a playground (if not well, he could at least try it) are particularly egregious examples. These are usually changed to things that make you much better at those things, but not absolutely, and a rule created to allow anyone to try it. Actually, if any area is likely to get further revision in my house rules, it's this sort of thing that I didn't really notice early on - things like 'Find Traps' and 'Track' desperately need to be rewritten in this manner. d) In general, 'c' is a subcase of the rules are written to be a binary pass/fail sort of thing, rather than a degree. For example, in my game there is basically no such thing as immunity to fire. Even something like a fire elemental has fire resistance 100. Very little in my rules is 'automatic' full stop. Rather things are automatic for a given ability level in normal circumstances of play. This avoids situations where as written you are dealing with unstoppable forces and immovable objects. e) The rules are silent on very basic aspects of how something would work for very natural propositions that a player would make, or else forbid a natural proposition explicitly in a way that discourages creativity seems designed just to . This generally happens because the players aren't relying on the rules to tell them what they can do, and so propose to do something that seems reasonable but which the rules are silent on. For example, can you cast a web targeting a flying creature and if so what happens? By the rules, 3.5 web doesn't work that way. Most DMs would probably respond to a proposition like, "I cast web on the griffin's wings to try to tangle it up" by pointing out in annoyance that the rules say, "These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears.", and that would be that. Or they might accuse the player of 'rules lawyering'. I'm not that DM. f) Anything that is explicitly that way purely for game balance but has no obvious in game reason. For example non-supernatural powers that are written like '1/day, you may...' for no obvious reason but game balance, are either excluded or rewritten to have different limitations. g) Rules that has written require the table to metagame to avoid the implication of the rules or to create rulings that stop the player from abusing the rules on the fly. An example is that the rules of 3.X allow strong characters to rapidly tunnel through stone walls with basically any object or even their bare hands, a proposition that the otherwise simple to use hardness/hit point rules don't cover. For example, it's not actually called out that a beer mug breaks when you use it to try to smash a stone wall. Most DMs are happy to just handle this with rulings, and I get that, but in doing that I find you are actually discouraging players from bringing pick axes and crowbars into a dungeon because there is no middle ground between walls of tissue paper and walls of obdurium. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?
Top