3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Raven Crowking]

Often, the unrealistic version of the rule is also more fun and more easily remembered and understood.

In other words, you are advocating the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

However, for some of us, adjudicating the archer's situation is not that horribly difficult. Simply apply a cover bonus to the AC of your target. If the arrow misses the target due to the cover bonus (i.e., missed by within 4 if the target has a +4 cover bonus), then determine which of your potentials (PC, NPC, and other monsters) provided the cover that saved the target (I would say roll randomly, with the closest potential being more likely than the farthest potential to provide cover). If the roll you made would have hit that person's Touch AC, but not his true AC, then the arrow was deflected without harm or foul. It the arrow could hit both, then that person takes damage. If the arrow could hit neither, the cover is eliminated and the attack strikes the original target.

Easy enough for me. A bit more calculating, maybe, but not too much.

To answer your other questions, ranged touch attack spells work in the same manner (EDIT: Just to be clear, since the ranged touch attack spell does not need to penetrate armour, if you happen to be the potential determined to provide cover, and it touches you, you take damage). Reach weapons work in the same manner, with the caveat that if the reach weapon is unable to damage an adjacent figure, that figure can accidently block the attack but does not take damage.

Where KISS works, I'm all for it. If "you never hit someone other than your target" works for you, then there is no problem. However, I'm not planning on altering my DMing style or house rules simply because they rise somewhat over the lowest common denominator.


RC

 

[Belen]

Actually, core assumptions belong in the DMG more than anywhere else.

Think of it this way. The DMG could cover a wide gamut of potential styles and assumptions.. from low magic, to high fantasy, grim-n-gritty.. etc.. and the book would be huge! Trying to be everything for everyone...
Or.. they can say 'this is the default', covering one style and balance pattern. Allowing GM's to alter from that one base as desired.

I am not advocating that the DMG display different styles of play. I am saying that the players should not look at the core assumptions in the DMG and attempt to tell a DM that is the only way that he can run the game.

 

[Berandor]

It seems a difference in attitude, all of the DMs I've met who follow the rules rarely have any house rules at all or 1 or 2 at most. Others who like to house rule tend to change almost everything, haven't read the rules(or did, 2 years ago...then forgot all the rules he didn't like), and come up with house rules for small situations that may never come up again on the fly.

Well, I've got a PDF file with all my house rules, including which supplement I have already allowed or expressively banned, and I only add new house rules in between game sessions and often after checking with my players.

So if you were to play in my campaign, I'd give you that file up front, and you knew what you were dealing with. In fact, I forgot to include one rule that I wanted to have in said file, and since it wasn't in the file, I didn't use it but stuck to the RAW.

I'm not out to screw players when I make house rules; I'm just trying to ensure they, and I, derive the most enjoyment from the game. If that makes me a bad DM in your eyes, then I will have to cope with that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Before I'll rejoin this discussion by reading the past two pages, here's a quote from "Heroes of Battle" that I find relevant to this thread:

On the topic of "Leader Feats" (p.96)

Thereby suggesting that all other new material is not subject to DM's approval, otherwise this sentence (in a sidebar, no less) should have been redundant. Heroes of Battle also features introductions to topics like "recognition points" with sentences such as "Chapter 2 included information for the DM about how to structure an adventure with recognition points. The actual rules are included here so players know how much points they get for certain actions" (not direct quote).

Says who? That is using the logic that Leadership is listed as a DM optional feat in the DMG, and since it is listed as optional, so should all feats that require it as a prerequisite.

The second part says "We gave the DM his half of the information about points, since the players aren't inventing the adventure and now we're giving the players their info so that they know how they work in terms of their own characters."

Not sure where you are going with that.

 

[Berandor]

Says who? That is using the logic that Leadership is listed as a DM optional feat in the DMG, and since it is listed as optional, so should all feats that require it as a prerequisite.

And if a feat doesn't list this as prerequisite, it is not optional, is it? Otherwise, this quote says "Remember, all feats are optional, but these are doubly optional."

No, the leadership feats are optional, but the DM is a meanie if he disallows anything else, because the other things don't rely on DMG stuff to work.

The second part says "We gave the DM his half of the information about points, since the players aren't inventing the adventure and now we're giving the players their info so that they know how they work in terms of their own characters."

Not sure where you are going with that.

The problem is that "the DM half" of the information is not really all that much. What points are, how they work, how many you should award and all that is "player half" - the DM only gets to see a flowchart where these points are already written into.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

(b) Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth" (emphasis mine). Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your continual flames at 1000% profit. Could you make a profit? Yes. Could you make the profit you are implying? No.

(d) You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them."​

Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out. It is a one time payment and useful for the rest of your life. Seems like a good deal to me.

As for problems with "role playing" reasons for it. You just need to look for the exceptions. Look for the one person in the crowd who doesn't view spellcasters that way. Plus, if magic works the way it does in the RAW, it means there is no chance for failure, perfectly safe and very useful. It would be fairly easy to create some illusions, convince someone to touch them and when they realize that it is perfectly safe understand that the torches are made the same way. I'm thinking word would spread fairly quickly of this amazing discovery and there might be people from far away who would make a journey to pay for this.

And, again, YMMV, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies. For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from? Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen? Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago? Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?

All the money? Every empire since the beginning of time that ever produced gold, silver, and copper coins. In Greyhawk...this is a lot.

People only get XP for defeating enemies, 95% of the people on the planet never defeat any enemies at all. Those who do, do so very rarely. Most people retire long before they get to high level. Once you have enough money that you could live a life of luxury forever, would you keep working? Especially if your job involved possibly dying. It's very rare the person who actually stood out enough to learn the skills of adventuring in the first place, survived long enough to get to high level and had the desire to keep doing it long after they were rich.

The PCs are the rare exception to the rule. So, there are very few high level people, as shown by the town level guidelines. Not enough of them to wipe out all low level monsters. Once you get to a high enough level that you could do it, you are normally concerned about bigger problems. Plus, you are opposed by people of equal power who are evil and are helping the low level creatures.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In other words, you are advocating the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Yes, pretty much. As for the rest of what you said, you are just using the optional rule from the DMG(or rule from the 3.0 PHB, whichever you'd like to consider it) exactly as written, sure, no problem. I understan using some of the optional rules from the DMG. It's easy for me to get into a campaign that says "I'm using the option hitting cover rules". This particular rule makes sense and was only removed due to the math you had to do for every shot that had cover.

However, my DM at the time ruled that only having a 20% chance to hit my friends wasn't good enough, after all, there 4 friends in the way and only 1 enemy, and since 90% of the enemy had to be covered by my friends, 90% of the places I could fire should hit my friends. It makes perfect sense using flawed logic.

I knew I needed a natural 20 to hit the enemy. Actually, due to the minuses I had to hit, even if I rolled a 19 using your rules, I would have missed everyone and a natural 20 would have hit the enemy. It just happened that in this situation, I rolled a natural 20 and the DM didn't even ask me to roll to confirm, he decided it was a critical hit, against my friend, the burly dwarf who barely tolerated my presence as is, as he didn't like the fact that I cast magic.

I only made the role due to a lack of spells and nothing better to do with my turn. I figured, that using any rule I knew of, there was a 5% chance to hit the enemy and 0% chance of hitting my friends. It was better than delaying. The DM told me that I should have known not to rely on RULES when common sense worked much better. Common sense told him that it was much more likely to hit my friends, so he used a percentile dice. 90% chance of hitting my friends regardless of what I rolled.

This is really what I don't like. DMs who feel that THEIR common sense makes more sense than the the rules or someone else's common sense. I disagree that it is common sense that I'd hit my friends. That being the case, it seems "common" sense isn't common to everyone. Better to invent a common set of rules that everyone can agree is now common sense to everyone rather than negotiate whose common sense to use for each decision.

 

[Greg K]

My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.

I completely agree with this opinion.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To me, it all washes out to say "we want you to play OUR game, OUR way", which is something that I disagree with. My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.

This is the one thing I've never completely understood about RPGs. Any game I play other than an RPG, I expect to play the game their way. Even if someone plays Monopoly and they are only the banker, I expect them to play fair and not make up their own rules.

I've never gone into any other game EXPECTING that the rules will be changed from the standard ones. Sometimes I do run into people who have a Monopoly House Rule, but very rarely. That's because when I play Monopoly, I expect to play the game Monopoly, not Risk with the rules of Monopoly, and not a game of stock market prices, that's not what I'm there for.

To me, when I got into a D&D game, I expect that it will be a 3.5 Edition games with no house rules that takes place in a Greyhawk-like world unless I'm told otherwise. The more changes from this, the less like D&D it feels to me. Just like when playing Settlers of Catan, I expect we are playing the basic game unless someone says we're playing with expansions, however.

People are right, D&D has a lot of core assumptions and some setting elements built in. If your campaign is far enough way from the core assumptions, it may be better to just use a more generic system like Fantasy Hero or GURPs. D&D is more setting specific.

 

[Greg K]

I found Monte's thoughts on rules and DMs not to be what I had expected.


Quotes from Rules are Rules (but nothing more)
" I've received criticism in the past for being a stickler for rules and I don't mind that at all. Consistency is a good thing, and the rules are there for a reason. But that reason should not get in the way of creativity."
"
"As I've said (in another context), this is just a game, which is a good thing. Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. And don't let them be a replacement for creativity -- creativity is an essential element in running a game."

" The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, "What have we wrought?" Then I remember that we intended these rules to be tools to help people create their own game material. To demystify the craft of game designer -- to look behind the curtain. That was a good goal. The tools can be taken too far, though. The fact that tabletop roleplaying games have gamemasters is a strength, not a weakness. Don't let rules replace good DMing skills."


Quotes From Design Decisions, part 2

"Balance
While I've no one to blame but myself (and the other 3rd Edition designers, I suppose), there are some things that I think are simply unbalanced in the core rules. After years of further play, I just don't like how they work anymore."

"Using the DM
To try to explain some of the things I'm attempting to do with Arcana Unearthed (and the books that follow it), I'll occasionally have to back up a bit and explain some things that we did with the core rules. One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying"

"Arcana Unearthed isn't for new players. It assumes at least a moderate level of experience and maturity. My philosophy is, "You don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way."