Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4946183" data-attributes="member: 29206">Shouldn't significantly change things.There are a few things in the rules that cause this to stop working, like vorpal weapons, but it shouldn't significantly change things unless they pick one of those up.I dunno, if I have a high level of knowledge about monsters that eat me, shouldn't I at least know whether it's going to be breathing fire or ice at me in the next few seconds? You might get some complaints here.This is a houserule? I always assumed that it was a GM's job to strike down nonsense. On the other hand, some people seem to think 4e is designed around all sorts of nonsense being perfectly acceptable because "the rules is the rules", so you might get a player rebellion here. Depends on your group.I mean, take Fanaelialae's post above - tripping an ooze is nonsense, but apparently in 4e it's supposed to be perfectly acceptable. (The last time I threw something out over "nonsense" in my games, though, was almost a year and a half ago when someone tried setting a meteor hammer against a charge. Even with magic that lets you do it with "any weapon" it defied belief, sorry. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />)I'm not sure what this even means. On the other hand, players who are already trying things not in the rules are less likely to complain about #4.Can be kinda whiny and micro-managey, so you might just want to go with "no takebacks once a move is completed" or something less annoying.Try and make sure the Faction benefits are at least somewhat balanced, but really, PCs hardly ever complain about good things for them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />I'm fairly sure that this would make the game explode, sadly.Man whatAre you from a different planet where tabletop RPGs haven't always been about house ruling?I would suggest this, however. Players should get some input on the house rules - before the game, they have a much easier time of giving input by playing or not playing, but when the rules are changed mid-game... well, you don't always want to drop out of a game you were having fun in.I always allow a player to retire a character, at least. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I rather like character continuity, and while I've got no problems with a player ceasing to play a character they're tired of, doing it too goddamn often - along the lines of 3 times in 5 sessions or more frequently - will cause me to just ask you to not make another character and instead leave. Of course, I wager that this is because I've had problems with two people who did that, whereas for most people it's just a hypothetical that isn't going to come up. I base this, of course, on how no one else I ever played with created and discarded characters during a game like that, and how I've played with quite a few other people. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification