House Rules You Don't Realize You Have

[Tolen Mar]

Swim checks use an armour check modifier and maybe a circumstance modifier if the player is carrying a lot

Actually, check the rules, that one is in the RAW...

 

[Henry]

I often forget myself and use the 3.0 cover and concealment rules, even in 3.5 games. It's easier to me and makes more sense than "half" and "total".

I used to house-rule that Rangers could use their virtual 2-weapon-fighting on double-headed weapons - glad to see they came to their senses and followed my lead.

With regard to appearance: It DOES mention it in the rules as written, but it's the last thing in the list: "...force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead,
and physical attractiveness." So even if someone described an UGLY son of a gun with a lazy wall-eye and psoriasis, he could still have an 18 CHA -- perhaps he uses a little self-deprecating humor to deflect the situation, or pokes fun at someone else -- or maybe that lazy eye draws people straight to his face where he can make one-on-one contact.

 

[Qualidar]

I just discovered one last night; I had not realized that the casting time of a spell being "one full round" is not the same as the spell being a full round action; for targeting purposes, this makes spells like Ice Storm much less convenient.

"one full round" is Ice Storm's duration, not casting time.

~Qualidar~

 

[The_Universe]

I know it's a house rule, but I let detect evil apply to all characters/npcs/monsters of an evil alignment. It makes being a Paladin trickier (since not all evils are great evils) but that's half the fun!

 

[diaglo]

unwritten houserule:

the powergaming munchkin in the group gets all the magic items.


13th lvl party. with 8 pcs. 6 pcs have on avg 40000gp value. the gnome sorc has ~ 66000gp but only cuz he is our main arcane caster.


the munchkin has 88000+

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I know it's a house rule, but I let detect evil apply to all characters/npcs/monsters of an evil alignment. It makes being a Paladin trickier (since not all evils are great evils) but that's half the fun!

It's also not a house rule.

 

[Glyfair]

It is? I thought that was standard, and have always been amazed at some of the debates about charisma. I always took Mr. Gygax's example of Hitler as an ugly 18 charisma to heart.

In 3.XE your personal appearance is part of your charisma score. However, charisma doesn't necessarily represent how good looking you are.

If you aren't good looking, you can have a high charisma. However, if you are good looking, you would have a higher charisma than if you weren't.

 

[GuardianLurker]

We have had the unwritten rule that if the PC's don't use save-or-die spells, the DM won't either.

In my group, this has gotten expanded into the more general rule of "There are M.A.D.* tactics; if the players don't abuse them, the GM won't either."

Sunder is a M.A.D. tactic. So are most of the "Lords of Smackdown" builds/tactics. There are others.

*M.A.D. = Mutually Assured Destruction

 

[ARandomGod]

If I don't realize its a house rule how can I tell you about it...?

Apparently I have several. I simply don't notice them until they're pointed out by me playing in a different game.

For instance I've always had someone able to run (x4 in light/no armor, or x3 other) in a non completely straight line. I mean, it just makes sense. Running all out certainly does not mean you can't turn, IRL.

I know I didn't realize this was a house-rule until later, when I was told I couldn't go that, I stated that was just silly... and looked it up.

Well. Really...

I still let people turn while running. As long as it's only a 45% turn per five foot (and ten feet between turns). Heh. Yes, it made me alter my houserule from simply allowing it to restricting it. But it's still allowed.

I've had other similiar instances, where I've used a house rule so long that I've forgotten that it's a house rule. Sometimes when I'm told I remember... sometimes I have to look it up to remember, and sometimes I just don't remember EVER reading that rule or making a concious decision about it... which I know can't be completely true because I read that book all the way through several times when I first got it. (Easy to forget some things though, because now I only look up specific things).

 

[ARandomGod]

I actually find the opposite to be true. I have house-ruled more in 3.5 than any other system I've run. But I also don't allow a ton of non-core material, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

That's as it needs to be. 3.X is a very lawful/rules dependant book. It has LOTS of rules for everything. There's a rule for everything and everything has a rule. Where it doesn't have a rule either does not exist or is an accepted (by the 3.x community) shortcoming.

Other systems aren't that way. They're more chaotic. There are some set rules, if it's in the rules it's *this way*, and if it's not in the rules it's clearly there and will happen different ways at different times, depending completely on GM's interpretation and situational modifiers...

Of cousre a very lawful system will have more house-laws invented. They're needed. The players are lawful by default, they have to be... it's the mindset they were taught to play in.