Player Problem, need advice

[DragonLancer]

let me guess, good maceroni salad and sausage burgers... over those all other problems fade away.

Something like that.

Yes you did. You're the DM-the only way a combat monster gets into your campaign is with your permission, either by action or inaction. You control player access to all of the classes and feats.

Look at it this way, is it fair to Player X if I allow him access to a feat or class, but not Player Y? If theres no reason to restrict them I don’t. I’m sure you don’t either.

You don't want a combat monster? Don't allow Great Cleave, or Spring Attack, or Whirlwind Attack, etc.
You don't want a combat monster? No Dragonslayer PrCls, etc.
You don't want a combat monster? Limit PCs to no more than 1/3rd of PC levels in a combat oriented class.
But don't gripe when a combat oriented PC outclasses non-combat oriented PCs in a melee.

There is a difference to outclassing and overshadowing. Outclassing is what fighters do. No argument from me there. But when you have a character (whether fighter or otherwise) who is pulling off damages far in excess of what anyone else can do, that’s not right. Even at 18th level no character (fighter or otherwise) should be pulling off over 105 points of damage on everysingle single attack. That’s epic level stuff.
And in the last campaign that’s exactlly what Likudice’s cleric character was pulling off! That’s excessive.

Would you complain if your warrior based party suddenly had a mage in the party and he was *gasp* better at spellslinging than anyone else in the party?

No. Because the fighters are not spellcasters. And yes, I see your point here, but the situation is not black and white. As has been posted (almost to the point of frustration on my part) its not his feat or class choices, its his desire/choice not to play to the level of game that the group enjoys.

Your gaming group I’m sure would be happy to have a player like Likudice and his style of play. It works for you and your group. It doesn’t for ours.

That's the way its coming across to me, at least.

Then you are reading too much into it.

In 27 years of gaming, I've constructed all kinds of PCs: min/maxed, suboptimal, high-concept, campaign wreckers, etc. And yes, you're absolutely correct to state that the outlier should adjust to the campaign in general. But if the player isn't aware of the boundaries, he's almost certainly going to violate them.

But after two years do you not think that he knows the gaming style of the group? Has he not learnt how we play over those couple years? And as Gnomish Tinker said, its not just my group he has upset with his play style, and rules arguing.

(That's like complaining that Jaya Ballard, Embermage, throws too many fire spells, or Fineous Fingers is stealing too many things from the NPCs. Combat characters tend to be optimized for combat!)

Optimised is fine. Excessive isn’t. This is the point you are ignoring. No offence, but your nor understanding whats bee said.

(In a Dragonlance campaign! What do YOU think a Dragonslayer is going to do in Krynn?)

And again, that’s not a problem. I am strict on PrC’s for my games and this one was picked because it fits the setting and because its not overpowered. It’s a good class… against Dragons! He gets to use it, not a problem. Never said it was.

By the rules, any multiclassing must be approved by the DM, and just because a feat is in print doesn't mean it fits the campaign. It is amazing what "You can't do that." can do for a campaign.

I allow only a handful of prestige classes in my game, and the only feats are those from the 3.5 PHB, XPH and from the new Dragonlance setting books (after vetting). Its not like I’m letting players have whatever they want. I don’t run games like that.

Personally, Dragonslayer is one PrCl I'd NEVER allow in Krynn, and psionic PCs in a campaign where psionic NPCs/monsters are rare/nonexistent can be VERY unbalancing.

So lets see… dragonslayer isn’t a class that fits the setting? You actually know the DL setting?
And I allow psionics (and have tied it into the nature of the world/setting) and although rare there are psionic individuals and monsters. Its not unbalancing.

If you don't mind starting another campaign, Just play 1 or 2e characters this time.

We like 3rd edition and prefer it to 1st or 2nd. I appriciate the idea but going backwards isn’t going to help.



Let me take a moment to point out that there are two issues here. Only one has managed to get air time really. Theres Likuidice’s play style (which I think has been argued back and forth to death) and his rules arguing (which has been largely ignored).
These two problems combined are the issue. I didn’t come here to seek advice solely on the former.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Hi DragonLancer - After six pages of discussion, I'm still not sure what it is you are after.

Are you seeking advice on whether it will be ok to ditch your player?
If so, yup, definitely. If he can't or won't play the style that you and your group enjoy and thereby seriously detracts from people's fun, he's a liability, not an asset. There's nothing to prevent you from still having him around for BBQs if he's a good friend/ fun to socialise with, even if he doesn't play in your game anymore.

Or are you seeking advice on how to deal with the problems the player causes in your game while keeping him in the group?
If so I guess you've had quite a bit of advice already. A couple more points, made in case you are still seeking solutions.


Re rules arguing:

This is the easier issue because it can actually be dealt with. Two words: "Shut. Up." It is your responsibility as DM to keep rules discussions to a minimum.

Personally I will usually listen to player queries (with a more open mind when voiced politely ), but once I've listened - once! - and confirmed or reversed my queried ruling, that ruling stands and there will be no more discussion over it at the table. Every player is always welcome to come talk to me outside game sessions if there's a problem.

(Of course if you don't really tend to run the game by the rules, that is bound to be extremely painful for your powergamer player - you may succeed in shutting him up, but you'll keep frustrating him.)


Re character building:

You invite misunderstanding by saying things like "Optimised is fine. Excessive isn’t." Optimised means most efficient, most, best - by definition it is the top of things, so 'excessive' has no application here.
http://adams.allwords.com/word-optimise.html:
'1. To make the most or best of (a particular situation or opportunity, etc).
2. To make the most efficient use of something, especially by analysing and planning.'
(Not to mention that obviously not every group will consider average damage output of 100+ hp per attack as excessive at high levels.)

Before you repeat yourself: I can vaguely gather what maybe you might mean (primarily because of BardStephenFox's analysis earlier in this thread), but your words don't say it - and more importantly, I don't get even the cloudiest idea of where the limplied limits your other players impose on themselves may lie. There are limits, that much is obvious from your complaints. But what are they? How far can I go in creating and developing a character and where should I stop?

I'm by no means a powergamer, but if I played in your game and you told me I needed to change my approach, then what you've said here wouldn't help me to adapt any better to the play style you want. I'd need a lot clearer guidance on where the limits are and how far I should or shouldn't go rules-wise.

If the style of your group involves implied limits and most players agree on where those limits are, that is fine. It also means they aren't optimising their characters - again, that's fine. However, you can't expect everyone to reach the same level of implied understanding without explanation, I'd say I'm pretty sensitive to group dynamics, but I couldn't work with what you are telling us here. And of course you can't expect a player with a powergamer mentality to understand implied limits anyway. It just won't work. You are never going to get anywhere pointing to your group's style exclaiming, 'But he's been witnessing it for two years!'.

IMO you have exactly two options here: get rid of the player with the incompatible style. _Or_ provide strict rules limitations for everyone - the more you limit options, the less space for powergaming for the so inclined. This will mean heavyhandedness on character build options such as ability scores, feats, Prestige Classes (of course!), as well as item availability. Complaining about how misunderstood your style is by likuidice isn't likely to yield any better results than it has in the past.

 

[likuidice]

Big problem with dragonlancers style conflicting with my own: Dragonlancers own words "players have too many options in 3rd edition" when asked if that meant that characters shouldn't get better at doing something, his response was basically "no, there should be a flat dice roll, they should never be able to get better at tripping or grappling etc"

"here is a difference to outclassing and overshadowing. Outclassing is what fighters do. No argument from me there. But when you have a character (whether fighter or otherwise) who is pulling off damages far in excess of what anyone else can do, that’s not right. Even at 18th level no character (fighter or otherwise) should be pulling off over 105 points of damage on everysingle single attack. That’s epic level stuff.
And in the last campaign that’s exactlly what Likudice’s cleric character was pulling off! That’s excessive. "

this is utterly untrue, the cleric character in question pulled of 100 points of damage 3 or 4 times in the entire campaign, only on criticals, and only when buffed to the gills, bear in mind this is a 20th level character. I actually think that Dragonlancers problem stems from the belief that high level characters shouldn't be capable of anything impressive.

"No. Because the fighters are not spellcasters. And yes, I see your point here, but the situation is not black and white. As has been posted (almost to the point of frustration on my part) its not his feat or class choices, its his desire/choice not to play to the level of game that the group enjoys. "

once again, it's assumed that a character who is built for combat should not be any better at fighting in melee than the bard or mage, because it overshadows their melee capabilities.




"ut after two years do you not think that he knows the gaming style of the group? Has he not learnt how we play over those couple years? And as Gnomish Tinker said, its not just my group he has upset with his play style, and rules arguing."
I started playing with the advent of 3rd edition, I think most of the groups hang ups come from the fact that 3rd edition is a different and more powerful system than 2nd or 1st edition. 30 points of damage from an attack by a fighter in 3rd ed is a nice but not overwhelming amount of whoop ass, while in 2nd ed it seems like a scary proposition that will lead to people shouting "broken".



"Optimised is fine. Excessive isn’t." I've made exactly one "excessive" character, the aforementioned cleric, apparently a high level character should not be capable of actually holding his own in a fight.


"I allow only a handful of prestige classes in my game, and the only feats are those from the 3.5 PHB, XPH and from the new Dragonlance setting books (after vetting). Its not like I’m letting players have whatever they want. I don’t run games like that. "

I use the options available and approved by Dragonlancer, so I'm complained at for doing so? bear in mind that I have not actually used a character worthy of the smackdown threads, no spiked chain madness, no bag o' rats, no silly combos of prcs and such, all characters are created using mostly core material, fairly mainstream vanilla feats etc. Dragonlancer believes that feats such as improved critical and spell focus are munchkinism in the highest form.

"Let me take a moment to point out that there are two issues here. Only one has managed to get air time really. Theres Likuidice’s play style (which I think has been argued back and forth to death) and his rules arguing (which has been largely ignored)."

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used. If I take the trouble to learn the rules, why the hell are they not being used?

Another word on outclassing: apparently outclassing someone in combat is wrong, outclassing someone in a skill or other ability is not. for example having a hide skill of 39 with an average roll is perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that the melee guy cant hid behind a barn, while the melee guy having an attack roll of 28 (thats 28 on an average roll, not +28) is totally excessive and elicits cries of munchkinism.

 

[BSF]

Dragonlancer, aside from my first few points, I have been overlooking the rules disagreements. Primarily because I don't have any real suggestions on how to "fix" it. Either likuidice will trust that you won't try to bend him over with arbitrary rulings, or he won't. Two years is certainly long enough to establish a pattern of trust.

Quite frankly, if he feels like you are abusing rulings just to get him, then I don't know why he keeps coming back. If he doesn't feel this way, then two years is plenty of time to ease back and worry less about the rules. Enjoy the game and trust that the DM is not going to be unreasonable. This is not to say that you can't verify a situation, or be sure that the DM remembers a specific rule. But, it does mean that you shouldn't stop the game to "debate" a ruling. It also means that you should avoid a shouting tirade as part of your "debate". I'm not accusing likuidice of these things, just establishing some of the boundaries that I adhere to for the benefit of the discussion.

 

[heimdall]

Having just had a player leave my campaign because of differences in styles, I'll offer a few comments...

The majority of my players have built characters that are not intended to be combat monsters. However, the elven warrioress can open a can whenever she chooses to do so. Same way with the half-elven ranger and the elven wizard/fighter/eldritch knight. Pretty much the only two characters that struggle in combat are the elan psion and the dwarven rogue/cleric (who has since classed into fighter due to role-playing). The one player who left almost always built an optimized character. When playing a fighter-type, it was optimized for combat. His last character, a rogue-type, was optimized for dungeon delving. The type of character wasn't the issue. It was philosophies of play that have always been a problem.

You guys are eventually going to have to settle on the style of play. Either DM and player are going to have to come to an agreement or there needs to be a parting of the ways. Gaming is supposed to be fun and it sounds like there is a lot of chafing. The chafing will take away from the fun and that violates the whole point of the game, does it not?

Rules mongering is always an issue during the game session itself. Set a very simple rule: during the game session, the DM ruling is non-negotiable, but not final. After the game session, if the player feels a ruling wasn't correct, take the time to hear the player out and if need be, make adjustments at the next game session. As a player, be willing to table the disagreement until after the game session.

If you have house rules, make sure they are clearly defined and understood by all players. I have done so. For instance, I have done away with the preferred class XP penalty in my game. It hasn't been needed to reduce munchkinism, but it has impaired character progression that has been role-played out (see dwarven cleric/rogue/fighter above). Anything that is not the book standard I clearly identify. If a player wants to play in my campaign, those rules are accepted. This saves a lot of argument.

Bottom line, though. Don't let the game get in the way of any friendships. I still consider the player who left my game a good friend, one I'm glad to have. Neither he nor I feel the game is worth ruining a friendship over.

 

[DragonLancer]

Big problem with dragonlancers style conflicting with my own: Dragonlancers own words "players have too many options in 3rd edition" when asked if that meant that characters shouldn't get better at doing something, his response was basically "no, there should be a flat dice roll, they should never be able to get better at tripping or grappling etc"

Um... I've never said that nor implied it so I am not sure at all where you have that idea from. If I wanted to play a game like that I would go dig my 1st ed books out.

this is utterly untrue, the cleric character in question pulled of 100 points of damage 3 or 4 times in the entire campaign, only on criticals, and only when buffed to the gills, bear in mind this is a 20th level character. I actually think that Dragonlancers problem stems from the belief that high level characters shouldn't be capable of anything impressive.

Again, not sure where you have this idea. *Is now really puzzled*
And it was a damn sight more than 3 or 4 times in the whole thing. Try at least twice per session.

I have no problem with high level characters, in fact I think 3rd edition handles it better than previous editions. And again, you have this idea that I don't want characters to pull off "heroic" actions and deeds. What would be the point of playing if you didn't.
Again, I have to repeat myself and say that the type of game of where characters (whether fighter or otherwise) pull off 100+ damage on a regular basis isn't the game that players around the gaming table (other than yourself) want to play. I'm not saying that the D&D game shouldn't encompass that, just that this group doesn't play that way.

I started playing with the advent of 3rd edition, I think most of the groups hang ups come from the fact that 3rd edition is a different and more powerful system than 2nd or 1st edition. 30 points of damage from an attack by a fighter in 3rd ed is a nice but not overwhelming amount of whoop ass, while in 2nd ed it seems like a scary proposition that will lead to people shouting "broken".

I don't think I've ever seen a 2nd level character pull off 30 points of damage. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
They are different systems and the group knows that 3rd is different and more powerful, and that may be the reason why the others don't like playing the game to that level. They want a 3rd ed game that conforms to the play style of 2nd edition, which I think we have kinda. Thats not a bad thing.

"Optimised is fine. Excessive isn’t." I've made exactly one "excessive" character, the aforementioned cleric, apparently a high level character should not be capable of actually holding his own in a fight.

I've never said that a high level character should be be capable. Your putting words in my mouth that I never said nor implied. What I have said is that you need to play to the style and level of the game that the majority want to play, but you won't, and thats the problem.

"I allow only a handful of prestige classes in my game, and the only feats are those from the 3.5 PHB, XPH and from the new Dragonlance setting books (after vetting). Its not like I’m letting players have whatever they want. I don’t run games like that. "

I use the options available and approved by Dragonlancer, so I'm complained at for doing so? bear in mind that I have not actually used a character worthy of the smackdown threads, no spiked chain madness, no bag o' rats, no silly combos of prcs and such, all characters are created using mostly core material, fairly mainstream vanilla feats etc. Dragonlancer believes that feats such as improved critical and spell focus are munchkinism in the highest form.

Bag o' rats? :\

I'm not penalising you for your choices. In fact I think your current character has a nice range of abilities, and he hasn't gone over the top (yet). He doesn't get to pull off that Deep Impact thing every hit (and thats about the worst thing he can pull off).

And I've never said that about Imp. Crit or Spell Focus.

Let me try and explain this again... You have 4 players and a DM who like a certain level/style of game with which they are comfortable. Adventures, stories, plot and scenes are run with the majority in mind with regards to abilities. This group is comfortable with that.
Then you introduce a fifth player who will max out his combat/spell potential. That fifth player, while essentially doing nothing wrong, throws out the balance of the game. The DM cannot continue to run sessions geared to the level of the majority because player 5 is playing a different level of game. And by the same standard, cannot cater to player 5 because its not suitable for the others.

I'm not saying don't take improved crit, or cast miracle or destruction...etc, what I'm saying is the game should not be geared towards your character. The majority here wins, so you should be playing down at the level of game that everyone else is. Thats what I want you to do.

The cleric who took Ashardalon/Ankalagon (Bastion of Broken Souls) out at the climax of the last campaign in three hits of 100+ damage was not want the players wanted. Their level of game would have allowed them a lengthy, pain-filled combat with risk to themselves, and instead the dragon was killed in three hits by you, and everyone else around the table was put out because it an anticlimax, and not what they wanted for the end of the campign.
Do you see where the problem lies?

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used. If I take the trouble to learn the rules, why the hell are they not being used?

They are guidelines. Myself, Gnomish Tinker, and our other GM friend John, has told you this on I count how many times. I run by the rules but there are times when as DM/GM I have to make a judgement call that may not sit well with you. I don't do it very often, you have to admit. And I can honestly say that on a few occasions I have incorrect calls because it would have slowed the game down at crucial instances to flick through the PHB and look.

Another word on outclassing: apparently outclassing someone in combat is wrong, outclassing someone in a skill or other ability is not. for example having a hide skill of 39 with an average roll is perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that the melee guy cant hid behind a barn, while the melee guy having an attack roll of 28 (thats 28 on an average roll, not +28) is totally excessive and elicits cries of munchkinism.

There is a big difference between skill use and combat. And no one would could call you out for a average 28 at your current levels, any of the fighter types around the table (K'aros, especially) could pull off the same roll.

 

[DragonLancer]

Dragonlancer, aside from my first few points, I have been overlooking the rules disagreements. Primarily because I don't have any real suggestions on how to "fix" it. Either likuidice will trust that you won't try to bend him over with arbitrary rulings, or he won't. Two years is certainly long enough to establish a pattern of trust.

I agree. I'm not looking for a "fix" from the good folks here, I just wanted to share the situation that has brought complaints to my table from the other players, and see the views of others.

Quite frankly, if he feels like you are abusing rulings just to get him, then I don't know why he keeps coming back. If he doesn't feel this way, then two years is plenty of time to ease back and worry less about the rules.

I agree. I wouldn't put tup with from any GM I played under, so if Likuidice feels that way and hasnt said his peice and left, I would assume he's either that not bothered or arguing for the sake of it.
I'm not trying to get him nor turn the rules against him. But a DM has to make judgement calls sometimes, and no other player complains or argues as much.

 

[DragonLancer]

The type of character wasn't the issue. It was philosophies of play that have always been a problem.

Spot on. Thats another good way of putting it.

If you have house rules, make sure they are clearly defined and understood by all players.

I did so, and they were nothing that messed around with anything. It just comes down to make judgement calls.

 

[BSF]

Big problem with dragonlancers style conflicting with my own: Dragonlancers own words "players have too many options in 3rd edition" when asked if that meant that characters shouldn't get better at doing something, his response was basically "no, there should be a flat dice roll, they should never be able to get better at tripping or grappling etc"

The key here is that it is a stylistic difference.

this is utterly untrue, the cleric character in question pulled of 100 points of damage 3 or 4 times in the entire campaign, only on criticals, and only when buffed to the gills, bear in mind this is a 20th level character. I actually think that Dragonlancers problem stems from the belief that high level characters shouldn't be capable of anything impressive.

Well, when you have never seen damage output like that before, it does tend to stick in your mind.

However, impressive is a matter of opinion.As Dragonlancer has said, you are playing to a different "level" of the game than the rest of the group.

once again, it's assumed that a character who is built for combat should not be any better at fighting in melee than the bard or mage, because it overshadows their melee capabilities.

OK, if that is true than it is kind of silly. In 2E, Bard's and Mage's had a lower THAC0 than fighters. In 1E, they did too (Though THAC0 didn't progress exactly the same way). However, it does seem more likely that you are not satisfied with the relative difference in how the group combat mechanics work out. Especially in comparison to your skill differences noted below.

I started playing with the advent of 3rd edition, I think most of the groups hang ups come from the fact that 3rd edition is a different and more powerful system than 2nd or 1st edition. 30 points of damage from an attack by a fighter in 3rd ed is a nice but not overwhelming amount of whoop ass, while in 2nd ed it seems like a scary proposition that will lead to people shouting "broken".

This could be somewhat true. Though in 3.0 & 3.5, it really depends on the PC levels before I consider 30 points of damage in a single hit to be relatively average. I certainly played in 1E games with critical hit rules that easily bounced my 7th/8th Ranger/Druid into severe damage range. Hell, I once killed a Frost Giant in a single swing. But, that game had a different style than any other 1E game I played.

I use the options available and approved by Dragonlancer, so I'm complained at for doing so? bear in mind that I have not actually used a character worthy of the smackdown threads, no spiked chain madness, no bag o' rats, no silly combos of prcs and such, all characters are created using mostly core material, fairly mainstream vanilla feats etc. Dragonlancer believes that feats such as improved critical and spell focus are munchkinism in the highest form.

Once again, this is style. The real problem is that it isn't a style you enjoy.

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used. If I take the trouble to learn the rules, why the hell are they not being used?

That is commendable that you take the time to learn the rules. There are a lot of players that don't. But, houserules are usually created to address situations that the group feels are "broken". Oftentimes this comes down to a style of play that they are comfortable playing. The rulebooks are a baseline that is established to deviate from, for whatever reason. Nobody is saying that your characters are illegal. What I am hearing is that you use the rules in ways that the group is uncomfortable with. It could be their collective ignorance on how the rules are meant to be balanced against each other. Or, it could be rules that establish a flavor and style that they do not find appealing to play. If you want to play with this group, learn the houserules and accept them as part of the playing experience, don't argue them.

Another word on outclassing: apparently outclassing someone in combat is wrong, outclassing someone in a skill or other ability is not. for example having a hide skill of 39 with an average roll is perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that the melee guy cant hid behind a barn, while the melee guy having an attack roll of 28 (thats 28 on an average roll, not +28) is totally excessive and elicits cries of munchkinism.

So some of the characters have a +28 - +29 on skills? Wow, that is pretty impressive. Sounds like a bit of magical assistance, but maybe not. But, then again, so what? It isn't about the die rolls, it's about relative power.

Let me put it this way, I play in a game where we are all 16th-17th level. The highest AC in the party is the monk. By my memory, he has an AC of roughly 24. My character has an AC 20, with all his magic in place. An average roll of 28 will hit anyone in my party. Oddly enough, we encounter opponents that still have trouble hitting us. We are light on magic items. So long as the DM wants to tweak CR's and understands that some opponents are going to eat us up like candy if he uses them, that's fine.

By the same token, my character has a +29 to Diplomacy. Maybe I should spend the skill points to bump it up to the +37 it could be. Or, maybe I should sink a few more skill points into the other 20 skills that I have? My diplomacy is excessive, my +22 Perform is close to it, I think. But, it hasn't bothered anybody in the group yet, so maybe it isn't?

Our style works for the group. There is nothing wrong with it, but there are some things I think are a little odd about it. As a result, I have a different style for the game that I run.

The scenario I ran the other night, with 16th level characters, had people rolling high 30's to low 40's and dealing ~ 100 points of damage in a round. There was also the buffed up BBEG that had a 50 AC. Once the Sorceror was able to dispel most of the buffs, the encounter was much easier. Until the BBEG dove down 100' underwater, re-hasted and rebuffed (3.0 rules with abusive Haste). In the end, the group won, barely. But, it did not make them happy to be sucking up 100+ HP of damage in a round either.

Both games are fun, but there are two different styles in play. Neither is right or wrong, they are just different.

Likuidice, you have my sympathy for being in a game that does not match your preferred style of play. But, your style is different than everyone else's in the group. This is causing disharmony. I can understand your not liking it, but you are not going to be able to change the group by arguing that they are playing wrong. You can adapt to play to their style, you can move on to a game that matches your style better. You could even try to run a game yourself. You could try my tactic and run one game that matches your style a little more, and continue to play in the other game. I game twice a week with completely different groups. I have fun in the game I play in, I have fun with the game I run. But, they both have different styles and I am fine with that.

 

[billd91]

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used. If I take the trouble to learn the rules, why the hell are they not being used? .

Depends on the extent of the house rules. They way I run games, I let everyone know about the house rules before I start using them. This would include major changes like retconning a bunch of 3.5 spells back to the 3.0 versions because the changes were pointless.
But if the question is about the DCs a DM has set for some skill checks (like using a +3 instead of a +2 circumstance bonus for an invisible draconian), those aren't really house rules. They are DM judgements based on what he feels is right as the game referee. You have to learn to trust those or you're playing the wrong kind of game.