House rules disagreement?

[GQuail]

There is a grand difference between seeing a rule written down and seeing it in practice: so while it might be a long-running house rule, this is arguably the first time it's really been an issue. (And when house rules of any sort lead to PC or favoured NPC death, things will always be different)

Furthermore, as has been said by others, since the nature of the spell was multi-turn non-dismissable damage he probably felt quite frustrated that for several turns he was "team-killing" and was unable to do anything about it - whereas the missed arrow for 3HP, annoying as it is, is not usually a life-or-death situation.

You've said your PC likes the tehory behind the rule but not the practicaility: speak to him more on this. Even if arguaging mid-game is bad form, he's clearly offering you some room to maneouver. The problem is that you and the rest of the group do have a certain amount of intertia in this house rule ("When I were a lad, we had to walk 15 miles in the snow to get a clear shot at the villains..." ;-) ) so he's going to have to work extra hard to come up with something to placate you - so try to cut him some slack! Even though he's in theminority, it's better to find something that makes everyone happy than something that makes him angry.

You're right, though, in that ultimately the exact rule doesn't matter - if pre-agreed, the players should not throw a strop in the middle of a session. I don't think this particular example is kickable, though, nad it's definatly something you should talk more to the guy about. (After the heat of combat is over, he might not be as tense about it anymore.)

 

[Thurbane]

I strongly disagree that my houserule "kills the archer archetype"...

Firstly, missile fire is only risky when someone shoots into the middle of a melee. There are plenty of opportunities for people to fire at enemies that are not in melee, such as enemy archers and spellcasters, not to mention outdoor encounter that take place at long ranges (my group do a lot of outdoor adventures, not just dungeoneering).

Secondly, even when firing in to melee, hitting an unintended target only happens if the attacker rolls fairly poorly - it's not an automatic chance to hit an allied character.

Anyway, all of this is fairly beside the point, and the exact type of debate I didn't want to get bogged down in. The thread was primarily created about the ettiquette of enforcing houserules, which I think everyone is pretty much in agreement on.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Firstly, missile fire is only risky when someone shoots into the middle of a melee. There are plenty of opportunities for people to fire at enemies that are not in melee, such as enemy archers and spellcasters, not to mention outdoor encounter that take place at long ranges (my group do a lot of outdoor adventures, not just dungeoneering).

But this kind of rule can grate because what it comes down to is a fumble rule that ONLY missile users have to suffer with. Do melee combatants incur penalties to avoid hitting allies when they are in the middle of a solid pack of combatants? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Melee is chaotic after all and shooting an arrow at an enemy or swinging a sword is no different if the DANGER you're trying to represent is someone being where you didn't expect them. It can even be argued that between melee and missile fire combatants the OPPOSITE attack form should be the one penalized. The archer will normally have a better overall view of the battle and thus the movement of combatants whereas the meleer is much more focused only on what's in front of him. Thus it is the meleer who should be more likely to hit an ally behind him or off to the side because someone moved where it couldn't be anticipated.

Honestly, I think you might want to look again at the 3.5 rules for firing into melee and cover. You said it was "risk-free" but that's a little disingenuous because it is certainly not penalty free. It serves the same purpose - taking the chaos of melee into account - but does so in a manner more in keeping with the generalized nature of the combat rules (doesn't tell you HOW you missed, just makes it more likely that you DO because you ARE taking unpredictable movements of close combatants into account). Rather than hitting friendlies with the occasional shot (still possible under 3.0) archers are simply assigned a -4 to-hit penalty for firing into melee in the first place to represent the difficulty of wanting to AVOID hitting allies. This, however, can be combined with a +4 AC for the enemy having cover that an ally provides to an enemy unwittingly. Technically it IS risk-free, but that's a substantial penalty and it FEELS less like a nerf.

The thread was primarily created about the ettiquette of enforcing houserules, which I think everyone is pretty much in agreement on.

But it can lend sympathy to the player. If, for example, your house rule had been particularly eggregious, it might have simply been a "last straw" situation, where dissatisfaction with the rule had gone unspoken and the player simply boiled over given the suddenly much greater importance of the outcome. The players ettiquette was certainly bad, but the details of the house rule ARE relevant to better guess at the players state of mind.

 

[Thurbane]

Thanks all for the feedback.

I am going to discuss the rule with the player today, and see if we can reach a compromise.

But I will be keeping firing into melee as a risky option - that's the way I run my game, I'm afraid, and we are all in agreement (even the upset player) that this is a reasonable situation. The mechanics of the rule, however, may be modified.

 

[Gerion of Mercadia]

Is there a "tracer round" spell?

True Strike?

 

[Graf]

I strongly disagree that my houserule "kills the archer archetype"...

Firstly, missile fire is only risky when someone shoots into the middle of a melee. There are plenty of opportunities for people to fire at enemies that are not in melee, such as enemy archers and spellcasters, not to mention outdoor encounter that take place at long ranges (my group do a lot of outdoor adventures, not just dungeoneering).

DnD basically involves people getting into melee and smacking it out. The wizard can switch to other spells, but the archer just has one choice, shooting someone.
The greater the imperitive to hit a bad guy the more that multiple people will want to engage them.

The more useful it would be for the archer to participate in combat the less they are allowed to.

It's fun destroying for the archtype. You may feel that you want to encourage everyone to play a melee type combatant, but the idea that it wouldn't be a big (albeit hidden) penality to the archer is hard to avoid.

Anyway, all of this is fairly beside the point, and the exact type of debate I didn't want to get bogged down in. The thread was primarily created about the ettiquette of enforcing houserules, which I think everyone is pretty much in agreement on.

I think everyone is agreed that you've followed commonly accepted ettiquette and done an excellent job mediating between the various desires of parties involved.