Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rackhir" data-source="post: 3865682" data-attributes="member: 149">Did you establish this &quot;No more actions on a roll of a 1&quot; rule ahead of time or was it something that came up in the combat. If you made this clear as a house rule ahead of time and then got arguments from the player that would be one thing.If it was something where the DM told me in the middle of a turn &quot;Oh, you rolled a one and don't get to take any more actions as a result.&quot; I'd be pretty pissed at the rules being suddenly changed in the middle of the game.If you are going to be changing basic rules of the game like this, you ABSOLUTELY need to tell people about it ahead of time. This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about for making sure that everyone knows what the rules are ahead of time. You might have been using this rule for years, but the other players have not and it's not even a common house rule.As far as &quot;cheating&quot; in favor of the characters goes, from what you said, they don't know you've crocked any rolls in their favor. As far as they can tell you've introduced an arbitrary rule that screwed them and not introduced any compensating factors. So yes, if you are going as a matter of policy going to be &quot;adjusting&quot; things in their favor you need to make that clear as well.Like in any relationship, you need good communication. You NEED to make clear to the players what the rules are and NOT to make changes in the middle of combat without at least telling people about it before hand.(As an aside this is also it is the kind of rule that tends to screw certain types of characters more than others. A mage or cleric is only going to be casting one spell a turn and many of them don't involve a roll other than damage. By contrast a fighter who by their nature depends on multiple attack rolls for their effectiveness, is going to suffer disproportionately from this rule, since the greater the number of rolls, the greater the likelyhood they're going to get screwed.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rackhir, post: 3865682, member: 149"] Did you establish this "No more actions on a roll of a 1" rule ahead of time or was it something that came up in the combat. If you made this clear as a house rule ahead of time and then got arguments from the player that would be one thing. If it was something where the DM told me in the middle of a turn "Oh, you rolled a one and don't get to take any more actions as a result." I'd be pretty pissed at the rules being suddenly changed in the middle of the game. If you are going to be changing basic rules of the game like this, you ABSOLUTELY need to tell people about it ahead of time. This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about for making sure that everyone knows what the rules are ahead of time. You might have been using this rule for years, but the other players have not and it's not even a common house rule. As far as "cheating" in favor of the characters goes, from what you said, they don't know you've crocked any rolls in their favor. As far as they can tell you've introduced an arbitrary rule that screwed them and not introduced any compensating factors. So yes, if you are going as a matter of policy going to be "adjusting" things in their favor you need to make that clear as well. Like in any relationship, you need good communication. You NEED to make clear to the players what the rules are and NOT to make changes in the middle of combat without at least telling people about it before hand. (As an aside this is also it is the kind of rule that tends to screw certain types of characters more than others. A mage or cleric is only going to be casting one spell a turn and many of them don't involve a roll other than damage. By contrast a fighter who by their nature depends on multiple attack rolls for their effectiveness, is going to suffer disproportionately from this rule, since the greater the number of rolls, the greater the likelyhood they're going to get screwed.) [/QUOTE]

Verification