Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2555074" data-attributes="member: 5143">And this is my point.  Each DM I've seen change the rules hasn't done it to try to kill the players or to exercize power over the game.  They've done it for their OWN sense of "common sense".In this case the rule in the book is that you add +4 to the enemies AC since you are aiming so far away from your friends (since you wouldn't dare risk hitting them) that it becomes very difficult to hit your foe.  I can see using the optional rule in the book to increase the amount of AC the enemy gets due to the amount of cover.  That's supported withing the spirit of the rules.  The point is that the character is basically saying "I take the shot only at the moment I KNOW there is no chance of hitting my friends, even if it means missing my target".Here's another secret about this rule.  The chance to hit your friends was removed because it slowed down gameplay too much as you had to roll extra dice(or figure out a math equation) everytime you fire through them (which happens nearly EVERY combat for us).  It is also no fun to hit your friends.  I know that critical fumble rules nearly ruined our game as everytime someone would roll a fumble the game would become a role playing nightmare as the character who was hit would demand that the character who "tried to kill" him was kicked out of the party or worse, killed themselves.But DMs who don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are could say "common sense says you should hit your friends, so I'm changing the rules to that".  Each DM thought the original rule was "stupid" and rather than seek to understand WHY the rule was written as it wasI agree completely.  It's the "laws" of physics that should be standard and shouldn't change arbitrarily.  There are always enemies you haven't heard of, spells someone else invented, new technique and fighting styles.  On the other hand, I loathe to make these up due to the time it takes and the chance of introducing overpowered rules into the game.  3e D&D is a lot more complicated than people think it is.  Changing "one small thing" that you figured would have no effect at all can ruin an entire game(like the time our DM removed flatfootedness from the game as it was "stupid").I agree as well.  I have had to tell my PCs a couple of times (that are used to my strict adherance to the rules) "don't worry, he can do it".  When they said "he just moved, full attacked, then moved again...spring attack only lets you make one attack, you know?"  Other times, it's me being forgetful and I say "you're right, he only hits you once then".  I appreciate that my players can keep me fair as much as I keep them fair.It HAS problems, but most of them are due to poor wording by the authors or people misinterpreting rules with what they THINK is common sense.  It also has flaws in a couple of situations that don't come up very often unless you actually TRY to break it.  I'm aware of most of them and have plugged all of them I'm aware of in my game.</blockquote>

Verification