Bad House Rules

[Mouseferatu]

Heh, I've thrown out a few stinkers in my games. The biggest one (IMO) sprouted from my dislike of the removal of the threat of permanant death. In 1&2E, you needed to make a system shock check each time you were resurrected, with failure indicating that you had died forever. I was initially displeased with the removal of this from 3E, so I added in the following system: You get 2 or 3 "free" resurrections (free of risk of permadeath). Each death thereafter, you had a 10% cumulative chance of permanant death. My players were kind enough to wait for a while before telling me I was on crack and such. I probably should have consulted them first.

You're not on crack at all. I'd love for there to be a risk associated with resurrections. I'm not a fan of "you lose a level," and I am a fan of the risk of permanent death. I've considered rules similar to the one you're talking about, and I wouldn't even have given 2 or 3 freebies. Maybe one.

 

[Grayhawk]

Heh, I've thrown out a few stinkers in my games. The biggest one (IMO) sprouted from my dislike of the removal of the threat of permanant death. In 1&2E, you needed to make a system shock check each time you were resurrected, with failure indicating that you had died forever. I was initially displeased with the removal of this from 3E, so I added in the following system: You get 2 or 3 "free" resurrections (free of risk of permadeath). Each death thereafter, you had a 10% cumulative chance of permanant death. My players were kind enough to wait for a while before telling me I was on crack and such. I probably should have consulted them first.

I too missed the risk of permanent death with earlier edition's Ressurection Survival Roll, so I made the following house rule:

-When Ressurected you don't lose a level, you lose a Con point.
-To be able to be Ressurected, you need to make a Con check vs DC 5, with your newly lowered Con. A roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

I made it this way, because I prefer the loss of Con over the loss of a level as a penalty for dying. Making the DC 5 mimics the DC's of 1e. Using the newly lowered Con makes an uneven Con score a nice buffer.

Most will propably think that this rule feels right at home in this thread

 

[Macbeth]

Wow. I really like the resurection ideas people are throwing around. A good house rule ina bad house rule thread. Awesome.

And you can consider the idea of a 'Resurection Roll' *yoink*ed.

 

[JoeBlank]

-When Ressurected you don't lose a level, you lose a Con point.
-To be able to be Ressurected, you need to make a Con check vs DC 5, with your newly lowered Con. A roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Best "bad" house rule I've heard in a while. I like this a lot.

And losing a Con point is a much more permanent effect than losing a level, which just puts you behind for little while.

 

[coyote6]

My worst houserule? Power Attack extra damage only applies to crittable monsters (no hacking through city walls). Wait, that wasn't soo bad.

I've considered something like it, disallowing power attacking inanimate objects. A barbarian of around 5th level, with a couple of potions or a couple of low-level buffing spells, hacking through several feet of stone wall in a minute tends to go through my suspension of disbelief at a similarly incredible rate. Not sure why.

Worst one: sorcerer got his bonus spells as spells known additionally. OMG, he could have rocked.

I give 'em bonus spells known -- but based on their Int, rather than Cha.