The "expectation" of house rules

[Majoru Oakheart]

EDIT: Case in point - last weekend, I had a guest player that played a trip-focused character and tried to argue that he could use the use the AOO provoked by an opponent that tried to stand up from prone to trip him again. I ruled that the AOO took place while the opponent was still prone, so that the opponent could stand up from prone as a move action and then take a standard action after the AOO was resolved (as per the FAQ, not that it's considered authoritative by some people ).

Of course this IS the rules.

What I've found most of the time is that when people find a way to abuse the rules, it is almost always centered around a dubious interpretation of the rules. If any rule is ambiguous and we can't decide on a "right" answer I always go with the less abuseable interpretation. There are only a couple of cases where the FAQ has ruled in favor of the MORE abuseable situation. These are the couple times I ignore the FAQ.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For example?

In your experience what house rules have caused the entire system to fall apart?

My one major example was when my DM removed Flatfootedness from the game. Suddenly no one cared if they went first, people in the group were begging to remove Improved Init from their characters. I was playing a rogue at the time, which I got so frustrated with losing sneak attacks and being less powerful than everyone else that I eventually gave up the character.

We also found enemies whose abilities didn't work correctly due to never being flatfooted. Combat Reflexes becames a less useful feat, entire tactics for the beginning of combat changed. You couldn't run forward and grapple someone before they reacted because they now got their AOO and prevented the grapple.

Most of us now had to think in terms of "how combat works in normal D&D" and how combat works in this person's game. Eventually, we adapted, mostly by no one in the group playing rogues anymore or taking Combat Reflexes. But that made part of the game "broken" and all because of a DMs quest for "realism".

 

[The Shaman]

My one major example was when my DM removed Flatfootedness from the game. Suddenly no one cared if they went first, people in the group were begging to remove Improved Init from their characters. I was playing a rogue at the time, which I got so frustrated with losing sneak attacks and being less powerful than everyone else that I eventually gave up the character....Eventually, we adapted, mostly by no one in the group playing rogues anymore or taking Combat Reflexes. But that made part of the game "broken" and all because of a DMs quest for "realism".

So losing one possible sneak attack per combat while retaining the abiity to sneak attack while flanking or against an opponent who might otherwise lose a Dex bonus to AC was enough for you (and everyone else?) to give up on playing rogues? And the only reason to act first in a combat round is to gain one attack against a slightly lower AC?

And this broke the entire combat system in your mind?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

So losing one possible sneak attack per combat while retaining the abiity to sneak attack while flanking or against an opponent who might otherwise lose a Dex bonus to AC was enough for you (and everyone else?) to give up on playing rogues? And the only reason to act first in a combat round is to gain one attack against a slightly lower AC?

And this broke the entire combat system in your mind?

My thoughts exactly. I'll also add...

How does removing Flat Footed remove the need to go FIRST? You go first, you kill the opponent first, and they can't kill you. Flat Footed has nothing at all to do with that. Sure, I wouldn't advise taking it out of the game, but it sure doesn't ruin combat or take away the 'need' to go first.

 

[Storm Raven]

So losing one possible sneak attack per combat while retaining the abiity to sneak attack while flanking or against an opponent who might otherwise lose a Dex bonus to AC was enough for you (and everyone else?) to give up on playing rogues? And the only reason to act first in a combat round is to gain one attack against a slightly lower AC?

And this broke the entire combat system in your mind?

Well, it's more than one possible sneak attack. If the rogue can make a ranged attack, or otherwise get iterative attacks while his opponent is flat-footed, then he can get multiple sneak attacks. Also, since no one is flat-footed, there is no "blind spot" for fast characters to close with and use unusual maneuvers against a flat-footed enemy without drawing AoOs.

Eliminating the flat-footed condition would radically change a lot of character builds, as some pretty major abilities and feats would be much less useful.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

While there might have been shared mistaken interpretations of rules, most of the house-ruling went on as a part of a deliberate attempt to customize the game to suit different individual tastes.

It hasn't been in my experience. I moved to Australia for a year, which was my first real foray into playing for a long time with a group other than the people I know here.

Since I was thinking about moving there permanently, I joined a couple of home games of people I met at local gaming stores. While there I played in Living Greyhawk games under about 10 different DMs and played in 5 different DMs home games. I also discussed rules with people regularly as they walked into the gaming store I hung around in.

In almost every case of a "house" rule in all that time, it was due to someone who didn't know the real rules.

For instance, when I mentioned to someone that they should be a rogue since it was a high level game, it was good to have a lot of attacks, they should get a weapon of speed so they could get the most sneak attacks per round. One of the DMs in the area overheard and said "That's SOO dumb, you are such a rules lawyer, you can't make more than 1 sneak attack per round" When I attempted to explain to them that the rules in the book didn't have that limitation, they said I was lying. Then they looked it up and realized they'd been playing with a house rule for 3 years without knowing it. Then immediately declared the rules were stupid and they wouldn't let anyone have more than 1 sneak attack per round. Rogues were supposed to be sneaky, not do lots of damage per round.

I ran into someone who was POSITIVE that critical failures were part of the rules. According to him "They've been that way since 2nd Edition". When I told him that according to core 2nd Ed rules, they weren't part of the rules either, he told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

This is fairly common amongst DMs I ran into. Don't know the rules, don't care. Once tried to tell a DM that neutralize poison didn't clear all of the ability damage ever done to poison to us. (I was at 2 con, and I should have kept my mouth shut, but I'm fair that way) He told me to stop interrupting him and questioning his decisions, it was HIS game and he KNEW what the spell did. So, I got cured of all con damage and shrugged.

Now, you may not have encountered this if you mostly play with people who are the type to frequent enworld. However, especially on conventions when I play Living Greyhawk, where house rules aren't allowed, I've run into at least 1 fairly big house rule per DM I play with. All of whom thought they were following the RAW.

 

[Sundragon2012]

A good example of really voluminous house rules is Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved. He took D&D in the direction he wanted it to go. This is every DM's prerogotive, especially if he is running a homebrew setting. I believe that the house rules must be well-thought out and internally consistant but if you aren't playing greyhawk or a greyhawk clone setting you are going to have house rules and perhaps a lot of them.

On a personal level as a DM I am allowed to create and recreate as I see fit for the betterment of my setting/campaign. Those who, like myself, who want to create something to share with others have a bookcase of house rules by names such as Green Ronin, Bastion Press, Ronin Arts, Malhavok, Necromancer Games, EN Publishing, Paradigm Concepts, Bottled Imp, Alea Publishing, etc.

These are all nothing more than published HOUSE RULES....some of which unfortunately are not particularly well-balanced for the needs of every campaign...but that is ok, because they can't be.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Any DM or player who buys OGL D&D products to use for their game is implicitly in favor of majot house rules. Even those that say they don't like house rules are in this camp if they use alternate rules found in 3rd party sources.

Anyone who claims to be against using house rules but who uses 3rd party products isn't against house rules in general, you are just against house rules you don't like.


Chris

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

How does removing Flat Footed remove the need to go FIRST? You go first, you kill the opponent first, and they can't kill you. Flat Footed has nothing at all to do with that. Sure, I wouldn't advise taking it out of the game, but it sure doesn't ruin combat or take away the 'need' to go first.

We found most combats only lasted about 2 rounds anyways, so going first didn't matter all that much, it's a matter of the enemy getting 1 attack or two. On the other hand, a good sneak attack at the beginning of combat could prevent enemies from ever getting an action.

I used a crossbow to get a sneak attack right away (or I charged to get one). I found that I instead spent the first round moving into position and then the enemy was dead before I ever got a sneak attack. I felt pretty lame, my job was to move around and get in position without ever attacking.

 

[werk]

I think it goes hand in hand with complexity.

Sure, you could house rule that when you slide in shoots and ladders, you have to stand up and twirl around (or take a drink) but it's a pretty strait-forward game.

D&D (or most RPGs) is so complex the rules are pretty much a framework to help you play the game.