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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8144020" data-attributes="member: 42582">"House rules", as used among RPGers, covers a wide territory.In our 4e game, we agreed (under my leadership as GM) that the +1 to damage from Weapon Focus (? is that the right feat name) didn't apply when the weapon was used as an Implement for casting spells. This seemed like an obvious consequence of correlating the rules to the fiction. I think a year or two later the errata caught up with us and agreed. In between there were pages of debate about that feat and "weaplements" which was (in my view) ridiculous given that we're talking about RPG rules and not the tax code.In our 4e game, the player of the Wizard/Invoker took the Sage of Ages epic destiny. That destiny has a range of abilities that - as written - work only with Arcane powers. We've always ignored that, allowing the abilities to work with all of the PC's abilities, both Arcane and Divine. There was not the least reason not to.Those are "house rules" - one a precisification, the other an alternation - that don't make any difference to the "system" of how the game is played, but simply brought the rules for the fictional elements, in a game that is heavy on mechanically-specified elements of PC build, into conformity with what we wanted that fiction to be.Deciding to ignore skill challenges, and treat skill checks in 4e just the same as one does in (say) RuneQuest, would be a completely different sort of house rule. It would be a fundamental change in the resolution process. The closest that we came to something like that was in the context of XP for quests - I would tend to treat quests as implicit in what the players were having their PCs do, rather than require them to be spelled out. In our particular case, that didn't seem to undermine any sense of focus or purposeful orientation in our play.</blockquote>

Verification