House rules disagreement?

[Sigurd]

I think you've mentioned all the important elements and should stick to your guns.

1. It was a reasonable rule in 3.0 and the difference is not an improvement (in your eyes) in 3.5

2. You are the DM.

3. You are also in the the majority.


Ask the disgruntled player if it is really an issue so long as it applies to everyone and it seems to make the rest of the players happy.

Yes that means a random arrow will fall somewhere some time but its a battlefield....

 

[Graf]

Honestly I'm sympathetic to your player.
The arbitararily-realistic-pet-house-rule of the DM is probably one of my least favorite parts of regular DnD. (If you have two people standing next to each other do you ahve a random chance of missing and hitting the wrong person? Do you make spells have a random chance of hitting other people? Do you have some explanation why you like to penalize archers with special rules?)

But if you explained it clearly in advance and got group approval then he's technically in the wrong.

Of course since it sounds like you don't have the rule for any reason other than it-used-to-be-like-this-when-we-started-playing-all-these-years-ago so maybe he felt it wasn't possible to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[phindar]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for players who object to rules only when they work against them. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but if it had been orc archers firing at the pc in melee with another enemy, he probably wouldn't have made such a big deal about it.

I'm all for a reasonable discussion of rules, but that's why we have the internet. Its not something you stop a game over (until it is, and then we call it a game-breaker).

In the interest of full-disclosure, I should mention I'm all for any rule that makes combat more random, more dangerous and less certain. It's combat, its supposed to be random, scary and dangerous.

 

[robberbaron]

Your houserule is basically how we played it in the old (1e) days and, as such, I am cool with the idea. Don't think I would be bothered enough to use it myself but, if a DM wants a houserule, it is his game and it is my choice whether or not to play in it.

We have had a few occasions when players disliked a DM's rule changes and/or DMing style enough to sit out the campaign, and a few times when houserules were challenged, so I can appreciate both sides of the argument.

 

[Thurbane]

Honestly I'm sympathetic to your player.
The arbitararily-realistic-pet-house-rule of the DM is probably one of my least favorite parts of regular DnD. (If you have two people standing next to each other do you ahve a random chance of missing and hitting the wrong person? Do you make spells have a random chance of hitting other people? Do you have some explanation why you like to penalize archers with special rules?)

But if you explained it clearly in advance and got group approval then he's technically in the wrong.

Of course since it sounds like you don't have the rule for any reason other than it-used-to-be-like-this-when-we-started-playing-all-these-years-ago so maybe he felt it wasn't possible to have a reasonable discussion.

Hmm, OK...

Let me answer these:

If you have two people standing next to each other do you ahve a random chance of missing and hitting the wrong person? Do you make spells have a random chance of hitting other people? Do you have some explanation why you like to penalize archers with special rules?

If these people are in combat, and if the spell requires a ranged attack roll, then yes. (Strnagely enough there are no archers in my current party, only casters and melee types). Nothing against archers as such, I just believe that firing into a melee is a risky endeavour. BTW, I also have a houserule about attack rolls to place spells like Fireball and the like, which you also probably wouldn't like.

Of course since it sounds like you don't have the rule for any reason other than it-used-to-be-like-this-when-we-started-playing-all-these-years-ago so maybe he felt it wasn't possible to have a reasonable discussion.

Thats not the reasoning at all. There are various things that I don't agree with the rules (in this version and all other versions), and I have houserules for these situations. Edition is irrelvant - there are some things I think the current version does extremely well, and there are other where I think earlier editions did it better. I've never considered the rules inviolable, and feel free to mod them for our games.

 

[phindar]

BTW, I also have a houserule about attack rolls to place spells like Fireball and the like, which you also probably wouldn't like.

It's a little off-topic, but this is why I prefer playing on a dry erase board rather than a battlemat. If casters have to pick where they are centering their spell before they measure it out, it eliminates the pin-point precision you get with a battlemat. (I should also point out this is my preference as a player and a GM, its not just something I want to screw the players with.) Combat should be quick and dirty.

 

[Graf]

(Strnagely enough there are no archers in my current party, only casters and melee types). Nothing against archers as such, I just believe that firing into a melee is a risky endeavour.

DnD being DnD (i.e. normally including/requiring melee types) that would basically prevent anyone from playing an archery based character.

BTW, I also have a houserule about attack rolls to place spells like Fireball and the like, which you also probably wouldn't like.

Gah. You're right. I've thought about it before and basically I think it's a terrible idea. If the caster doesn't role well the rest of the party takes damage.

Still, my first post was obviously wrong/off-base/incorrect/etc. If you have a whole system that penalizes non-melee attacks by having them randomly damage nearby allies you're player should have known what they're in for.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances (really bad week, recently dumped by SigO) you should drop him or her.

 

[robberbaron]

I also have a houserule about attack rolls to place spells like Fireball and the like, which you also probably wouldn't like.

Don't like it for general use certainly, however, if a caster can't actually see where he wants to centre his Fireball (say, there are a couple of enemies in front of the fighters and the wiz in the third rank wants to get the enemies but not his companions) he makes an INT check against a DC set dependent upon the situation (10-12 normally). Make and the fighters feel a warm breeze on their faces. Fail and the enemies feel a warm breeze on their backs. Roll a 1 and the fighters lose their moustaches, eyebrows and sense of humour.

Hasn't happened for a while but it seemed reasonable to me and no-ones complained about it.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Hmm, OK...

Let me answer these:If these people are in combat, and if the spell requires a ranged attack roll, then yes. (Strnagely enough there are no archers in my current party, only casters and melee types). Nothing against archers as such, I just believe that firing into a melee is a risky endeavour. BTW, I also have a houserule about attack rolls to place spells like Fireball and the like, which you also probably wouldn't like.

You say its nothing against archers, but acknowlege that your house rule kills the archer archetype as a viable role in your parties. So, it's obviously not a character type that you value.

As for the targeting houserule, let me reiterate my comment on making the rest of the rules make sense with your houserules - is there a "sure targeting" metamagic feat? Is there a higher level but lower damage area effect spell that is able to be pinpointed? Is there a "tracer round" spell?

If not, just like in the "banning fly" thread misplaced on the rules forum, I envision a wizard stading on the sidelines watching the damaged tank duke it out with the equally damaged BBEG while lower level allies provide flanking and Aid Another, saying "Woe is me! If only I wasn't the first adventuring wizard in the long and storied history of adventuring wizards to be in a situation where his only spell that could hurt the villain has a chance of killing off an ally instead! If only any of the wizards who founded and ran my college had thought for a moment about the value of taking longer or more energy to cast a spell that strikes with greater precision!" While the Archer beside him says "I know how you feel, the epic level archer who mentored me has feats with names like 'Greater Precise Shot' and he still has a one in twenty chance of sqewering an ally every time he shoots. Maybe we should stop adventuring and found a school for this sort of thing?"

Over the top? Sure. But there is flanking so there is Uncanny Dodge, so there are rules for being "higher enough" level to overcome uncanny dodge. There are spells so there is spell resistance so there is spell penetration. Introducing a combat wrinkle like this with no feats spells or level that will overcome it is, imo, bad house rule design.

 

[Orealus]

OK. From my understanding you really have 2 issues.

The first is whether or not the rule is good, and the second is how the issue was brought up with the DM.

As far as the first issue, the rule has been in place for a while, but this is the first time it has had a significant effect in combat. If one of your players is just significantly against the new rule, then try to figure it out. The mechanics can be modified to adapt to a consensus, or you could provide alternative relief. Some suggestions have been to rethink the rule, or to modify the mechanics further to be able to mitigate such situations. I think how you work out the mechanics of the rule is up to you and your players, but democracy is not often the best policy in small groups of friends/players.

Second is the actual argument over the rule mid game. In my opinion, all serious disagreements should be handled outside the game, and after the game, not during. I think if a rule is in place, and some serious discomfort results from it, you can use your DM magic to (although in this case unnecessary) make sure no permanent damage results, and discuss the game rule with everyone out of game.

In short: Do rethink the rule, or offer alternative relief. No sense in losing a player you really want over a house rule. Do also take the player aside and explain that arguments during the game disrupt the atmosphere and ruins the experience for everyone. Keep the discipline and the mechanics separate, or friction can continue to disrupt your game. Remember, have fun. it is a game after all.