Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 7591744" data-attributes="member: 59057">I really have a problem how the word &quot;house rule&quot; is used lately.As far as I know a houserule is a change to an existing rule which is formally introduced to your players.A situation where some player tries something creatively that does not clearly fall wirhin the standard rules which you as a DM have to adjucate is in my opinion a &quot;ruling&quot;. A use of the freedom of the DM which falls under the standard rules of &quot;improvising an action&quot;.It is entirely possible to make a houserule out of a ruling. But to be called a houserule, it needs to be something that occurs on a regular basis and a player can rely on them.A ruling is something that may be an exception to the standard procedure because in a certain situation it seems more appropriate to handle it differently. Spotting the weak point in the enemy armor for example is not something a player can take for granted. The most similar rule to make use of a weak spot in armor is the rogue sneak attack feature. This one does not grant advantage, but contrary needs advantage (or an adjacent ally) to actually work.So in my opinion granting advantage is not the right choice here.One Idea would grant an auto critical hit, another would be grant some extra d6 damage like sneak attack, another Idea would be making the enemy vulnerable to the attack into the weak spot...Would i want it to be a general (house) rule: when there is a weak spot in the armor you may take disadvantage on your to hit roll to get an auto crit? Unlikely.Then everyone not wearing a helmet which is obviously a weak spot without someone pointing at it would be vulnerable to an attack targetting the head.And if I wanted it to be a houserule I'd rather have the option of taking disadvantage to the attack to deal double damage instead of every attack just be made with advantage...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 7591744, member: 59057"] I really have a problem how the word "house rule" is used lately. As far as I know a houserule is a change to an existing rule which is formally introduced to your players. A situation where some player tries something creatively that does not clearly fall wirhin the standard rules which you as a DM have to adjucate is in my opinion a "ruling". A use of the freedom of the DM which falls under the standard rules of "improvising an action". It is entirely possible to make a houserule out of a ruling. But to be called a houserule, it needs to be something that occurs on a regular basis and a player can rely on them. A ruling is something that may be an exception to the standard procedure because in a certain situation it seems more appropriate to handle it differently. Spotting the weak point in the enemy armor for example is not something a player can take for granted. The most similar rule to make use of a weak spot in armor is the rogue sneak attack feature. This one does not grant advantage, but contrary needs advantage (or an adjacent ally) to actually work. So in my opinion granting advantage is not the right choice here. One Idea would grant an auto critical hit, another would be grant some extra d6 damage like sneak attack, another Idea would be making the enemy vulnerable to the attack into the weak spot... Would i want it to be a general (house) rule: when there is a weak spot in the armor you may take disadvantage on your to hit roll to get an auto crit? Unlikely. Then everyone not wearing a helmet which is obviously a weak spot without someone pointing at it would be vulnerable to an attack targetting the head. And if I wanted it to be a houserule I'd rather have the option of taking disadvantage to the attack to deal double damage instead of every attack just be made with advantage... [/QUOTE]

Verification