D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Ahrimon]

Anyone else had issues with groups that decide to house rule on the fly because it's more realistic? My group recently threw out that you can't move between two oppenents when they are diagonally next to each other. And that you can move through an oppenents square if they are prone.

Maybe it bugs me more than it should since I'm playing a charging barbarian and the diagonal movement thing hampers my character. Or it could just be that on the fly rules changes drive me nuts.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I find that house rules are the heart and soul of most campaigns as no group runs things by the book implicitly without some hassles.

1. pp 283 says you can move through "most" creatures standing diagonally as they don't fill up squares.. not "all". That's a DM judgment call and limited I'd rule to S and M sized. Anything bigger you're out of luck.

2. I'd rule against prone too as just because you're prone doesn't mean you're dead. You're still an obstacle.

If the entire group agrees on a rules change it should happen. If there are dissenters, it probably shouldn't as you've correctly gathered that the change may affect your character more than others.

Why did the group agree to change this? What happened in game to bring it up?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Anyone else had issues with groups that decide to house rule on the fly because it's more realistic? My group recently threw out that you can't move between two oppenents when they are diagonally next to each other. And that you can move through an oppenents square if they are prone.

Maybe it bugs me more than it should since I'm playing a charging barbarian and the diagonal movement thing hampers my character. Or it could just be that on the fly rules changes drive me nuts.

Well on the fly rules changes would drive me nuts also but reality and D&D (any version of D&D) are not well aquainted.
The quest for realism drove me away from D&D 20 years ago but then I decided that I was deluding myself. I did learn a couple of things though, realism is an imposibility, there are always edge cases where it breaks down. In systems that make close approaches to reality your characters die alot.
So I returned, like the prodigal to the warm embrace of D&D (3.0 at the time) where heros are heroic, kick ass, take names and loot the corpses.

 

[Henry]

There are some things I've house-ruled because my "plausibility" meter wouldn't let me -- I still get iffy about things like making oozes prone and unconscious creatures getting pulled with "Come and Get it", because I'd have to go through overly complicated explanations to make these things work.

 

[Riastlin]

When you play a game with wizards, elves, tieflings, dwarves, orcs, dragons, etc. striving for reality at all times is a bit of fruitless proposition. That being said, I have always felt that house rules are designed to make things more fun for the group as a whole. Basing the ruling on "reality" is a bit suspect, but I think that the group as a whole needs to think about what makes the game the most fun. Certainly, I would normally be hesitant to issue a ruling that would hamper one PC more than the others though.

 

[Ahrimon]

I joined this group while we started up a new campaign. Played that for a while. Then the decision was made to finish up thunderspire (DM moved back). Started playing and these house rules came up mid combat. What happened was that I moved between two opponents who were dazed (I was cornered) and attacked someone else. Then the fighter moved up next to them and did some passing attack that let him attack, shift then attack again. The DM asked how he moved (to where I just was) and then ruled that you can't move between two oppenents. Apparently this house rule had come in when he was DM before.

I'll just adjust my playing, but it really pushes my buttons when rules change on the fly. Especially mid combat and when it hampers the characters.

So I was just wondering how others felt. And how others dealt with random "it's more realistic this way, dispite it being an abstract system" rules changes mid game.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I joined this group while we started up a new campaign. Played that for a while. Then the decision was made to finish up thunderspire (DM moved back). Started playing and these house rules came up mid combat. What happened was that I moved between two opponents who were dazed (I was cornered) and attacked someone else. Then the fighter moved up next to them and did some passing attack that let him attack, shift then attack again. The DM asked how he moved (to where I just was) and then ruled that you can't move between two oppenents. Apparently this house rule had come in when he was DM before.

If the rule was in place and everyone but you knew about it I'd say it was bad form for someone not to mention it ahead of time (like when the new DM took over). Personally I make sure any house rules when I DM are known by every player before play even starts. Heck before character generation even starts.

I'll just adjust my playing, but it really pushes my buttons when rules change on the fly. Especially mid combat and when it hampers the characters.

yeah it'd tick me off as well if that happened. Fortunately I play under and with excellent DMs who, for some reason, put up with my bitching. I'm working on it though.

So I was just wondering how others felt. And how others dealt with random "it's more realistic this way, dispite it being an abstract system" rules changes mid game.

Once the 'r' word gets uttered I generally tune out anything said. I do NOT play D&D for realism of any kind.

 

[Mad Hamish]

It depends a fair bit on the house rules whether it annoys me or not, it's certainly harder to annoy me about it than it was 20 years ago.
As to the particular house rules you mention above I'd say that the can't move diagonally is a sign that the GM doesn't realise the abstract nature of D&D combat.
Why is

X....X
...o
X....X

fine to move between enemies but
...X
X o X
...X
isn't?
You've got the same number of enemies etc.
Mind you there are cases like
X
..X
....X
versus XXX
or
X
X
X

where I can see his point. If people are forming a shieldwall then I'd consider it a reasonable GM call.

As to the can move through prone enemy's square I might allow it against a typical small or medium enemy but I'd say you give combat advantage to their attack of opportunity.
Or you could do an athletics check to jump over the square and if you get a good enough result you don't provoke.

 

[fanboy2000]

Mid-combat rule changes, whatever the reason, isn't something I endorse as a way to happy players. It's one thing to rule with an Iron Fist (something I do endorse), it's something else to be a jerk.

That said, it's a little hard to draw a line between what's a rule change and what's a ruling when the text confuses people.

Anyways, realism is the second most quoted reason for any houserule or DM ruling. The first being balance. (YMMV) For some reason, no one is willing to say "we houseruled this because this is more fun." Maybe the people making the rule don't think the new rule is fun.

 

[Ahrimon]

It was a case of
X 1
2 X

I went from one to two and then moved away. He moved up to two then to one. Their rule is based on a
X
..X
....X
type of wall. And that's how they explained it to me. I see where they're coming from, but don't like mixing realism with my DnD. =)

I'm definately going to mention the
..X..
XOX
..X..

vs

X..X
..O..
X..X
situation.