Bad House Rules

[John Q. Mayhem]

When I started DMing a while back I let my PCs threaten and flank with ranged weapons within 10 ft. It didn't work out so good.

 

[Storm Raven]

My point is, gravity, fire, freezing, disease, etc work on the same assumptions in fantasy worlds as they do in the real world- otherwise there is no point of reference between the two.

They don't have to. One could easily posit a fantasy universe in which Aristotelean science is correct, and it would be completely workable. And much of the elements of modern science would be completely unworkable.

Why is it necessary that disease work via the germ theory, instead of being the result of spirits; and fire be produced as a chemical reaction, as opposed to being produced by the interference of a nonsentient elemental force? Why do these things have to work the same way in a fantasy world as in our world?

 

[XO]

I presently have an excellent DM with a bad house rule (can't win 'em all): Fumbles on a 1 go to a table. Problem is, one tank has +16 to hit, so if he misses anything between AC10 and AC16, it's a fumble ??? Let alone the table goes to % and has nasty effects like "do triple damage to yourself".

On another note, regarding knowledge of the world PCs operate in, I find it difficult to believe that literate characters (or worse, highly educated ones like wizards and clerics, having access to libraries and other resources) would not know TONS of information about the world THEY live in...

The fantasy world a la D&D is NOT communications or travel challenged, and books are more readily available than they were in the "dull-Earth" medieval times.

Furthermore, and this is a KEY POINT in favor of extensive knowledge, we (me, anyone who reads this, any DM, any player) do not live in that "imaginary world" (I hope), are not threatened by its hazards, do not confront its challenges, and look at the sheer volume of knowledge we possess on these worlds !!! We could colelctively rewrite the core books and most wotc (or other publishers') campaign books from memory...

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Much as it actually goes against the flavor of gaming, and much as I would never institute the Natural 20 always kills, I can see where that makes some realism involved. How many times have you seen on a TV show or heard about someone getting klunked on the head and knocked out. Or how many times have you heard about someone being shot and they instantly die? In D&D that is somewhat rare due to the amount of HP creatures have (of course this could lead to the argument I have heard that HP measures an amount of vitality, luck and other things and that 'hits' may not always be a physical 'actual' hit).

I am also surprised that nobody has brought up 'spell components' as a house rule as those rarely seem to be used by anyone I have seen in games, including cons.

 

[Psion]

2) Drow equipment is still better than normal but turns to dust on the surface.

I use that one, and find the reason for removing that from the core to be totally bogus.

 

[The Grackle]

Much as it actually goes against the flavor of gaming, and much as I would never institute the Natural 20 always kills, I can see where that makes some realism involved. How many times have you seen on a TV show or heard about someone getting klunked on the head and knocked out. Or how many times have you heard about someone being shot and they instantly die? In D&D that is somewhat rare due to the amount of HP creatures have (of course this could lead to the argument I have heard that HP measures an amount of vitality, luck and other things and that 'hits' may not always be a physical 'actual' hit).

Yeah. I don't mind some instant kill rules. I played AD&D w/a modified "Good Hits, Bad Misses" table, and that was fine. It made combat a little more interesting and low level monsters slightly threatening. But the whole eye-shooting thing was corny.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Actually now that you mention it I do have this humorous vision (ha-ha) of all these monsters running around getting shot in the eye. For some reason I also get this vision (ha-ha) of Lennie, from The Simpsons yelling out "My eye! My doctor said I am not supposed ot get pudding in it!"

 

[Hammerhead]

In my previous campaign I ran, one paladin had an insane Charisma and thus insane saves. Naturally, my bad guys would try to use no-save effects on the paladin...particularily Enervation. The said player of the paladin hated Enervation, and whined about it constantly.

Now, in his game, he has banned any kind of negative levels b/c he thinks they're unfair, since there's no save. Whiner. I hate that rule.

 

[balam_br]

This House rule comes from a DM that i really respect but...

Smart PCs gain more XP than dumb PCs.

in the end of session you multiply your XP gained by a percentile based in your Int atribute.

Inteligence 11 means +10% XP per session
12 = +20%
13 = +30% and so on...

It is not a surprise, but i never cared to play something not a Wizard in his games...

 

[diaglo]

...sorry for digging up an old thread, but I've seen or heard of a few silly house rules over the years, and I kind of wanted to share.

arrrgggghhh. i had almost wiped these horrid memories from my mind too...


sorry to hear others are still experiencing some and new ones at that too.