Holding on to and "Returning" weapons

[Infiniti2000]

My DM has a house rule that requires a STR check to hold on to a lance when doing large amounts of damage (basically critical on a charge) and I'm looking for solutions. He has basically given me permission to come up with any idea (as long as he okays it), but would like to see what there "officially" is before creating something from scratch.

So, he's forcing you to come up with a house rule to counter his ill-conceived house rule? That's a load of you-know-what.


DM: I'm instituting a house rule that'll make your character suck and lose his best magical item whenever he performs too well.

PC: Wtf!?

DM: Oh, and it's up to you to come up with a way to stop me from screwing you over.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, I would be more inclined (if I were the DM) to inflict damage on the weapon in the event of massive amounts of damage - shatttered lances were fairly common.

But I would reserve this to a pure medieval game, my games tend to have gun powder...

The Auld Grump

 

[Dross]

So, he's forcing you to come up with a house rule to counter his ill-conceived house rule? That's a load of you-know-what.

DM: I'm instituting a house rule that'll make your character suck and lose his best magical item whenever he performs too well.

What makes you think that it is ill conceived? If you don't like/prefer it that's fine. I wouldn't institute such a rule myself, but then as a DM i've instituted different house rules that he wouldn't. Beides, I CHOSE to go this way with full knowledge of the house rule.
But why wouldn't I try to work a solution to the problem? Why would a fighter choose Iron Will?

Let me ask this I2000 (although not house rule territory): Would you call choosing the Iron Will feat for a fighter ill conceived, since poor Will saves stuff the fighter and there are many instances of fighter types showing great willpower in history?

"shrug" NOTE: I am HAPPY with the rule, that is not the issue. I can see what he is trying to do. And it works both ways (PC/DM controlled). That is not the issue I raised here. Maybe I shouldn't have provided history to the Q but let it go at the question itself?

And the lance is not my PC's best weapon (longsword is in this case), just my PC's prefered method of hurting others, to the angst of others. (of course, I am not being defensive, am I? )

TheAuldGrump mentioned lances receiveing damage or shattering. My DM didn't want to go that far since lances should shatter on just about every hit (to our knowledge anyway) and having that happen to a magical or even masterwork lance was going too far.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let me ask this I2000 . . .

I would respond by PM/e-mail, but you have both disabled.

That is not the issue I raised here.

My apologies for the derailment.

In an effort to help, there's an armor enhancement, called I think, that you might get the DM to allow for a weapon to work similarly. This enhancement is in Complete Divine or Complete Warrior, forget which.

 

[Dross]

I would respond by PM/e-mail, but you have both disabled.
My apologies for the derailment.

In an effort to help, there's an armor enhancement, called I think, that you might get the DM to allow for a weapon to work similarly. This enhancement is in Complete Divine or Complete Warrior, forget which.

I'm not too fussed I2000, the Q was to understand a bit of your opinion of how you like to run things more than anything else.

As for the "called" enhancement, that is something that i missed in my searches, thanks

 

[Jhulae]

Um...

Is this for all weapons? or just the lance?

If it's for just the lance, that seems to be a very poor house rule. After all, *any* weapon can get stuck (especially piercing weapons) on a 'good hit'.

If it's for all weapons, then, it's also a very poor house rule, as PCs will be the ones losing their weapons most of the time (especially fighters).

I honestly see no purpose to the house rule, as D&D isn't set up for 'realism', and a rule that's supposed to 'mimic' realism for just one weapon isn't in any way realistic if it doesn't do the same for all weapons.

 

[Dross]

Um...

Is this for all weapons? or just the lance?

If it's for just the lance, that seems to be a very poor house rule. After all, *any* weapon can get stuck (especially piercing weapons) on a 'good hit'.

If it's for all weapons, then, it's also a very poor house rule, as PCs will be the ones losing their weapons most of the time (especially fighters).

I honestly see no purpose to the house rule, as D&D isn't set up for 'realism', and a rule that's supposed to 'mimic' realism for just one weapon isn't in any way realistic if it doesn't do the same for all weapons.

Granted D&D isn't set up for 'realism' but there are a lot of HR around these boards the provide a touch of realism to the game or use some realism to cover areas the rules do not. Have you never thought of using one Jhulae? At this time this particular rule is for the lance (may include spear if it ever comes up for instance), and only comes into play after a crit on a charge (realistically, not a lot). Most weapons in the game have a "realism effect" of one type or another that comes into play every know and then. The party has been saved twice by the DM suffering the "realism effect" which the players enjoyed immensely. It's made things akward for us when it has happened against us.

And we LIKE the "realism effect", it adds to the style of this campaign.

And more chaos in battle = worse for the PCs.