The "expectation" of house rules

[The Shaman]

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.

When I wrote "one," I was thinking of one opportunity to sneak attack - my bad for not making that clear.

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.

I can actually see why a GM might make a no-flatfoot houserule for just this reason - some of the situations that arise with flat-footedness strain credulity.

Eliminating the flat-footed condition would radically change a lot of character builds...

Would it be fair to categorize these builds as first-strike combat monkeys?

...as some pretty major abilities and feats would be much less useful.

Could you give a couple of examples from your experience?

 

[Storm Raven]

When I wrote "one," I was thinking of one opportunity to sneak attack - my bad for not making that clear.

In that case, I'm not sure why you think it is a minor issue.

I can actually see why a GM might make a no-flatfoot houserule for just this reason - some of the situations that arise with flat-footedness strain credulity

Unless you've been involved in sparring matches in which one side or the other got the jump on the other - you can do quite a bit before your opponent has a chance to recover.

Would it be fair to categorize these builds as first-strike combat monkeys?

Some would be. But, for example, it makes the Combat Reflexes AoO specialist less interesting, since he loses his unique ability to counter first strike combat monkeys.

Could you give a couple of examples from your experience?

I haven't played in such an environment, but changing the flat-footed rules will clearly have some far-reaching implications. It makes Improved Initiative and Combat Reflexes less valuable. It takes away one of the major uses of the sneak attack ability. It completely obviates the uncanny dodge ability. It hampers the usefulness of any skill, feat, or attribute relating to getting surprise or avoiding being surprised by making the consequences of surprise far less important. It makes the heavily armored "tank" fighter a less attractive build, but removing one of the drawbacks of running a lightly armored dextrous fighter (losing a good portion of your AC when flat-footed). And so on.

 

[The Shaman]

In that case, I'm not sure why you think it is a minor issue....Unless you've been involved in sparring matches in which one side or the other got the jump on the other - you can do quite a bit before your opponent has a chance to recover.

I think it's that a player that chose to emphasize this tactic with a specific build would be a real waste in the games I run - rarely does the ability to do a lot of damage to a single foe make that much of a difference in the encounters I design.

My mantra is simple: mooks and cover...mooks and cover...mooks and cover...

...it makes the Combat Reflexes AoO specialist less interesting, since he loses his unique ability to counter first strike combat monkeys.

I'm looking at Combat Reflexes and only the ability to make an AoO is lost: the ability to make multiple AoOs equal to Dex bonus +1 is preserved, which in my experience is pretty valuable when getting rushed by a horde of grappling orcs or somesuch.

I haven't played in such an environment, but changing the flat-footed rules will clearly have some far-reaching implications. It makes Improved Initiative and Combat Reflexes less valuable.

I disagree - Improved Initiative is always valuable in my experience and it only nerfs one aspect of Combat Reflexes as noted above.

It takes away one of the major uses of the sneak attack ability.

It takes away one sneak attack opportunity, but since a rogue is more likely to have multiple opportunities to flank during combat and can look for other opportunities that take away Dex bonus to AC, this doesn't really seem that significant to me, at least IMX.

It completely obviates the uncanny dodge ability.

I'll have to take your word for it- I don't recall how that works.

It hampers the usefulness of any skill, feat, or attribute relating to getting surprise or avoiding being surprised by making the consequences of surprise far less important.

Surprise means you get to take an action before your opponents, which is highly beneficial whether or not your opponent is flat-footed, IMX. Coupled with Improved Initiative, it's possible to do quite a bit before the other guy gets to act - how is that inferior?

It makes the heavily armored "tank" fighter a less attractive build, but removing one of the drawbacks of running a lightly armored dextrous fighter (losing a good portion of your AC when flat-footed). And so on.

Armor is it's own benefit.

I'm sorry, but nothing that your suggesting as a major change strikes me as that disruptive.

 

[wingsandsword]

Now, as for game-wrecking house rules, the "Ridiculous House Rules" thread on the Wizards.com forums (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=106389&page=1&pp=30) is a true museum of things that can really wreck a game (looking there for a nice sampler of really bad ones).

1. Since undead are healed by negative energy, and negative energy is evil, and aggression is evil, any evil act near an undead heals it, and attacking an undead heals it since you're committing evil aggression towards it (unless you're using holy or blessed weapons).
2. Elves and half-elves cannot use any weapons of iron or steel, and are limited to wooden weapons.
3. Human PC's have to make a saving throw to disobey any command or suggestoin said by an Elf, because Elves are so wise and respected.
4. No magical healing exists. Other magic exists, but only natural healing occurs, at normal PHB rates.
5. The DM assigns all PC's races and ability scores for them, and all PC's begin as 1st level commoners to reflect what they did before adventuring, and must earn their first PC class level in-game through adventuring.
6. You can only ever carry 10 potions and 10 scrolls, no matter what kind of storage equipment you have or preparations you make.
7. If you wear black clothes or armor, your alignment automatically starts to slide towards evil, because only bad guys wear black.
8. Killing an elf is an evil act, regardless of circumstances, and elves are all immune to illusion and enchantment spells.
9. Non-elf PC's are always slaves of elves, and if you plot rebellion, the gods strike you down with lightning or NPC Paladins come and kill you engaging in an evil rebellion against the good elves.
10. NPC's don't have to prepare spells, they can spontaneously cast off of any spell on their class list. PC's still have to prepare spells.
11. No magic items looted from NPC's never work for NPC's, they just cannot be activated, end of story, not divination can reveal how, no Use Magic Device check, nothing.
12. Failing your Sense Motive vs. their Bluff means they have effectively Charmed you and you'll do whatever they tell you to do because you believe it will be a good idea.
13. All Elves get a free level of Wizard (and +4 Charisma), which doesn't count towards ECL.
14. Rolling a natural 1 on an attack roll always breaks your weapon, regardless of material or enchantment.
15. Any time you commit an evil act of any sort, an Epic-Level Paladin appears to arrest/kill you.
16. Paladins are allowed to kill anybody, regardless of alignment, and eat them (no alignment/paladinhood sanctions), as long as the worship any other god (even if they worship another LG deity).
17. XP penalties if the players do not share the real-world political/ideological beliefs of the DM, and worse penalties the further the beliefs differ (justifying it as a roleplaying penalty for not acting like you agree with him).

Oddly enough, the most insane bad house rules are one of three things.
1. Power trip by a GM who tries to inflict his will on others, especially for a sense of superiority.
2. Blatant favoritism towards a certain race and/or class.
3. GM's who have no clue how the rules work, so they just make things up without realizing what it's going to do.

Now, after reading through this, I'm going to go try recover the sanity loss I just took from reading a litany of truly awful DM's.

 

[The Shaman]

*snippity-snip!*

Number two's not so bad...

 

[Storm Raven]

I think it's that a player that chose to emphasize this tactic with a specific build would be a real waste in the games I run - rarely does the ability to do a lot of damage to a single foe make that much of a difference in the encounters I design.

You also negate a major way to deal lots of damage to a collection of mooks. For example, an archery based rogue using a bow to take out several mooks in the first round via sneak attacking with multiple arrows.

My mantra is simple: mooks and cover...mooks and cover...mooks and cover...I'm looking at Combat Reflexes and only the ability to make an AoO is lost: the ability to make multiple AoOs equal to Dex bonus +1 is preserved, which in my experience is pretty valuable when getting rushed by a horde of grappling orcs or somesuch.

I didn't say that it made Combat Reflexes completely useless, I said it makes it less interesting. And it does. It negates about half of the usefulness of the feat. Are you trying to argue that negating half of the usefulness of a feat is not a significant change?

I disagree - Improved Initiative is always valuable in my experience and it only nerfs one aspect of Combat Reflexes as noted above.

It makes it far less valuable, since there is much less of an issue related to being first in combat, or avoiding going after opposing rogues (or other creatures with sneak attack type abilities).

It takes away one sneak attack opportunity, but since a rogue is more likely to have multiple opportunities to flank during combat and can look for other opportunities that take away Dex bonus to AC, this doesn't really seem that significant to me, at least IMX.

It takes away one of the most significant sneak attack scenarios there is, a situation that probably accounts for more than half of a rogue's sneak attack opportunities overall. Flanking takes a while, and in higher level combat things just don't last long enough for maneuveing around into position to be particularly profitable. And witing for your opponent's to do things like climb or run means that your opportunities are going to be few and far between.

I'll have to take your word for it- I don't recall how that works.

You are engaged in a debate concerning the effects of removing the flat-footed conditions of the game and you don't recall how uncanny dodge works? I'm thinking you aren't really up to speed on the whole issue in that case.

Surprise means you get to take an action before your opponents, which is highly beneficial whether or not your opponent is flat-footed, IMX. Coupled with Improved Initiative, it's possible to do quite a bit before the other guy gets to act - how is that inferior?

By removing the flat-footed condition, you have made surprise far less valuable. Yes, you get to go first, but your opponent is at no disadvantage like he would be under the standard rules. He retains his Dex bonus to AC, you cannot sneak attack him, he can take AoOs. That makes getting surprise far less significant than under the standard rules.

Note that I didn't say it made getting surprise useless, I said it makes it less valuable. You see, a rule set that makes going first have a host of benefits makes going first superior to a rule set that does not grant those benefits. That means that going first under the "no flat-footed rule" is inferior when compared to going first under the "flat-footed" rule.

Armor is it's own benefit.

A fighter armored in full plate with a heavy shield an AC of 20 and a move of 20, he runs slowly. When flat-footed he has an AC of 20.

A fighter armored in a chain shirt, with a Dexterity of 20 has an AC of 20, and a move of 30, he runs quickly. When flat-footed, he has an AC of 15.

One of the side benefits gained by the "tank" armored character is that his AC is usually not significantly affected by being flat-footed when compared to his more lightly armored and agile counterparts. Eliminating the flat-footed rule just makes heavy armor that much less useful when compared to light armor.

I'm sorry, but nothing that your suggesting as a major change strikes me as that disruptive.

That seems to be because you don't seem to think that any reduction in the usefulness of various feats, class abilities, and so forth has any impact unless their usefulness is completely negated. In these cases, the various game elements in question are significantly changed in impact, which is a significant realingment in the nature of the game and how it plays.

 

[Hussar]

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

I would agree with that with the following slight change:

I am against house rules that do not include a fair bit of contemplation of the ramifications of those changes.

Using something like Arcana Evolved includes a huge amount of work done by the game designer to take into account how the changes affect the core rules. A lot of effort is expended making sure that rule conflicts are minimized.

I have no problems with house rules per se. I do have a problem with house rules being made without taking a larger picture view first. The example of the elimination of being flat footed is a good one. Taking out flat footed greatly lessens the effect of many feats and class features. Add into the mix the idea of swift actions which can be taken on other people's turns, and you get a larger problem. Granted, swift actions are themselves, an additional rule beyond the core, but, the point still remains.

A house rule which nerfs a character build for no reason other than the DM feels it should is bad. It doesn't matter if my build is a "first strike combat monkey" or not. Why is being a first strike combat monkey a bad thing? As if being that is any worse than a tank fighter or a twink elf archer. It's a build, same as any other and has the same chances for being a memorable character as any other.

 

[Jackelope King]

Would it be fair to categorize these builds as first-strike combat monkeys?

In some cases maybe, but I'm actually playing a character who I would definitely not clasify as a first-strike combat monkey. I've been playing him for three years now, and it'd certainly hurt him if he couldn't make a sneak-attack against a flat-footed foe, since that's pretty much the only way he can usually deal with an enemy in combat.

The character I'm refering to is an elven fighter 4/rogue 5/spymaster 5. He'd much rather lie his way through an encounter with his high bluff skill or just sneak by it in disguise rather than stab someone's face off. When it does come to a fight, he'd rather end it quickly with the quick draw fighting style he developed over the years as a criminal on the run (need to react faster than the other guy when you need to react to an ambush in the blink of an eye).

He can certainly do some nasty damage with this early quick draw, and he can make due feinting if he has to (and using flick of the wrist drawing a dagger if all else fails), but he really isn't what I'd consider a "combat monkey". As I said, he'd rather trick the enemy and avoid a fight than have to stick his sword in someone. Such a change would definitely hurt this character, and he's not much of a combat monkey.

 

[Nim]

I would agree with that with the following slight change:

I am against house rules that do not include a fair bit of contemplation of the ramifications of those changes.

Using something like Arcana Evolved includes a huge amount of work done by the game designer to take into account how the changes affect the core rules. A lot of effort is expended making sure that rule conflicts are minimized.

Hmm.

To me, that sounds a lot like 'These rules are good because I paid money for them!' Which is to say, basing worth on price rather than vice versa.

(Unfortunately, as anyone who works in the software industry can affirm, the fact that you're paying money for something doesn't always mean it was done right....)

 

[Hussar]

Hmm.

To me, that sounds a lot like 'These rules are good because I paid money for them!' Which is to say, basing worth on price rather than vice versa.

(Unfortunately, as anyone who works in the software industry can affirm, the fact that you're paying money for something doesn't always mean it was done right....)

Not at all. There are numerous books out there that don't follow what I said and deal with the consequences of rule changes. Rules abortions like the Hulking Hurler come to mind. Actually, the majority of problems crop up when add-on rules are used in conjunction with other rules that weren't anticipated. The fact that they are published or not has very little to do with it. However, when a book is published, it gets put up for review by various people and, when done properly, people will support the changes made in the book.

When a DM changes the rules for his own campaign, there is no outside review of those changes. The only review is from the reaction of the players and this can certainly lead to conflicts around the gaming table. You don't see house rules being critiqued by umpteen different DM's on Enworld or any of the umpteen other boards unless the DM in question decides to put his houserule up for critique. Most DM's don't read online boards, so, consequently, most houserules are never reviewed outside of the group which uses them. That lack of review does lead to some very bad house rules being kept around.

On a side note, I forgot about using Feint in combat. That's another effect of nerfing flat footed. Without flat footed, the ONLY way a sneak attack works is flanking. A lone thief can never use his sneak attack ability. I would say this is a major disadvantage to hand to the rogues in the game.