Rarely used rules

[apsuman]

We hardly ever use the "to hit" rules. Really, there is no reason to roll the dice, we just figure out if it would be reasonable or not for the hit to happen.

We do the same for damage.

g!

 

[Duncan Haldane]

We hardly ever use the "to hit" rules. Really, there is no reason to roll the dice, we just figure out if it would be reasonable or not for the hit to happen.

We do the same for damage.

g!

Hey, wow! This sounds GREAT! Is it done by negotiation, with each attack being discussed and decided upon individually, with each player getting to have his or her say? I may have to introduce this into my own games!

Non-conflict combat!

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Hey, wow! This sounds GREAT! Is it done by negotiation, with each attack being discussed and decided upon individually, with each player getting to have his or her say? I may have to introduce this into my own games!

Non-conflict combat!

Oh...

I think there would be plenty of conflict!

Anyway, I've rarely used grappling, pummeling, overbearing, etc. in any of the versions--perhaps if they ever come up with an intuitive and easily remembered system...

 

[Psion]

We have players who refocus just to feel good... (shrug)

We rarely counterspell, but the players do know how to do it... but I don't think they use it too effectively. They managed to piss off a dragon by counterspelling an inconsequential spell, but the party's main foe is a wizard who likes to teleport away, and I have never seen the party sorcerer try to counterspell that... though he should. (But then, timing is a little rough.)

One rule that I do see a lot of people toss out on its ear is monk and paladin multiclass restrictions...

 

[Tsyr]

One rule that I do see a lot of people toss out on its ear is monk and paladin multiclass restrictions...

Yeah, that's another one... I also toss out the alignment restrictions on favored enemies for rangers, alignment restrictions on bards, and allow lawful-anything paladins, but that's just me

 

[Viking Bastard]

Re: Re: sunder and disarm

My fiend's character...

Hey, whoah, kewl!! You have a fiend?!?! And he games with you?!?!

That's totally intense!!

 

[0-hr]

The rule to hit cover if you fail to hit because of the cover and how you don´t hit the cover if it manages to get out of the way and therefore you hit the target as if there were not any cover.

Ha! That's hilarious. This would be on my "least used" list except that I've Rule Zero'ed it. In our game, if you miss because of cover, then you hit the cover (well, as a touch attack anyway, roll again to actually inflict damage).

Anyway, one rule we've never used is the "Starting Encounter Distance" bit. The bad guys just seem to show up at the edge of our map when the fight starts. (shrug)

We do use grappling fairly often, but only because we've taken the rules and condensed them into a single page flow-chart type thing that we can actually understand.

 

[Squire James]

One interesting encounter I ran was a priest (Clr9) with a gnome assistant (Ftr6/Wiz1) with a Wand of Dispel Magic (both on an elevated platform). The gnome was given the job of countering one spell a round. It worked very well (Fly got countered, Haste got countered, etc), so I'm considering a Wall of Gnomes (10 or so gnomes doing the same thing with Staves of Greater Dispelling) for my high-level game soon!

 

[smetzger]

Encumberance
Grapple
Sunder
Bull Rush
Disarm
Balance checks (when I am not DM)

 

[kreynolds]

I through out the 5-foot step. Actually, I threw out movement all together.