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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Democratus" data-source="post: 8207443" data-attributes="member: 7027043">Not at all. I've been proven wrong on a number of occasions by trying out house rules that I absolutely thought would not work. Enough so that I know better than to think my white-room analysis gives me an airtight conclusion on what the effect will be.The rule at my table is that we will try any proposed rule change for at least one session. Any proposal at all.Recent examples would be:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tracing a line behind a target when a missile attack misses, and checking to see if it hits anyone else</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dice-rolling mini game to be played between casters whenever Counterspell is cast (inspired by Big Trouble in Little China)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Moving all healing spells into the Necromancy school</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Interruption of spellcasting via melee/missile as a reaction (inspired by 2nd edition and segments)</li> </ul>Sometimes it ends up being as bad as I feared. Sometimes it makes the game better.I game at a table with reasonable humans who don't abuse the social compact. So nobody has proposed that all paladins are immune to magic or that bards become deities at 5th level.Exhaustion when reaching 0 hp was suggested by one of my players. I worried that it may be too much "death spiral". But we always give proposals a try. So we gave it a shot. And it greatly improved our game.You're usually at a sane place when you play with sane people. I've run for hundreds, if not thousands, of players. And the number of irrational problem players (who were adults) I have encountered could be counted on one hand. So I'm not afraid to hand over some creative control to the people at my table.</blockquote>

Verification