Those rules we tend to ignore and how they impact play.

[megamania]

Spell Components for level 0-3 unless overly expensive (Identify)

Tracking food. About three weeks of game time AFTER they should have run out I ask about it.


I wasn't always careful about the book they used. One player often mixed and matched 3.0 and 3.5 to get the best possible results. Picked that up after a year of playing.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Cheap spell components: means that casters can use their magic even when in prison. My dungeon for deviant spellcasters thus required the addition of a special anti-magic material.

Critical ranges for weapons: All weapons in my games do double damage on a nat 20. That makes some weapons fairly useless (ex: a scimitar is now worse than a short sword). However, it hasn't caused enough disruption for me to go back to the way it's done by the book.

 

[Reynard]

I think we tend to drop or ignore rules because of complexity and/or book keeping -- weapon speeds, spell components, etc... -- but sometimes we drop or ignore rules purposefully to impact play. For example, ignoring supplies (food, water, torches, components, ammo, etc...) changes the focus of the exploration part of the game. Whether this is good or bad depends entirely on personal/group preferences. I am more interested, though, in the unintended consequences, mostly from the perspective of houseruling through omission as I try and refocus on 3.5.

 

[Gort]

Hope I'm not derailing, but lots of people have mentioned wanting to track mundane and minor equipment but finding that they either forget or get tired of it. Has anyone tried using item cards? You know, when players get a piece of equipment, they get a card with the equipment on it (a tiny one for an arrow, a fair sized one for their 200' rope, and a honking big one for their +2 full plate) to make it easy. So when your archer rapid shots, he just chucks two arrow cards into the pot.

You could even use this for money, in the same vein as games like Monopoly. Anyone tried using cards for equipment, and how did it go?

 

[Psion]

I'll point out that under 3.5e, ignoring specifics of cheap components is the rule; no ignoring or handwaving required:

Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

 

[Reynard]

I'll point out that under 3.5e, ignoring specifics of cheap components is the rule; no ignoring or handwaving required:

But that rule still assumes you have the components on hand because you have the pouch. I wonder if those people that tend to ignore components ignore them completely (i.e. would still let the wizard cast spells in prison, or if they'd been burned up by dragon's fire or whatever) or if they, as you say, merely handwaive acquisition and tracking so long as the character would reasonably have acces to the pouch.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Soft cover.

Very quick example: A is the archer, B is his friend, C is the enemy.

C
B
.
.
.
A

In every group I've been in, if A shoots at C, and has Precise Shot, they suffer no penalty and C gets no cover. I was under the distinct impression that without Precise Shot, they would take -4, and C would gain cover from B. So, with Precise Shot, there's no -4 penalty, but C still gains cover from B.

I'll be delighted if I'm wrong

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

In order to make reasonable decisions to ignore micromanagement, you need reasonable players. If players are going to try to abuse the house rule by saying they're carrying around 400 feet of rope, that's not being reasonable and I'd either say no or tell the player that he/she will now be responsible for monitoring encumbrance (which I'd check every session).

Luckily I have reasonable players.

 

[Anguish]

Ogrork hit it squarely. Reasonable. Just last night we started a brand-new 1st-level campaign, and I pointed out to my DM, for reassurance, that I am tracking ammunition. Why? Because at 1st-level, every 1gp counts. 10 crossbow bolts is important in the grand scale of character-wealth. So's food. And buying accommodations in town. Once you hit around 4th-level and start leaving plundered non-masterwork greataxes because they're too big to drag around, it's reasonable to stop tracking 1gp level costs. The numerical importance of your food supplies becomes trivial. Its weight and size component of your Heward's Handy Haversack is likewise trivial.

Encumbrance we also mostly disregard. A character can carry the equipment he needs to be what he is. Paladins can wear full-plate and wield great-swords, even if their Str is a bit suboptimal and they shouldn't be able to without having move 5. That being said, again we're reasonable, and you're not allowed to just carry 500lb of copper coins back to town just because you whacked a bunch of giants.

We give Sorcs Eschew Materials free at 1st. Wizards have to buy a spell-component bag, but again are assumed to restock in town at statistically meaningless cost.

Why aren't there rules about equipment maintenance? Fighters should be buying whetstones and rogues should be oiling their leathers. Why aren't rangers forced to restring their bows every month? Shouldn't wizards' spellbooks get moldy if not properly preserved and maintained in a dry environment? Why do you only need to feed your horses, but never have them re-shod? Because this sort of nickel-and-dime accounting isn't any fun, at least in the long-ish term.

My personal House-Rules document includes multiclass penalties as something to be ignored. My view there is that players should be encouraged to make the character they want to make, not penalized for trying an interesting mix of abilities. If someone's willing to take a level dip in rogue to get trapfinding for the party, and it's not their favoured class by race, it's cruel to penalize them. Yes, you'll get people grabbing levels for personal benefit, but it's just not worth the accounting.

 

[Psion]

But that rule still assumes you have the components on hand because you have the pouch.

That's right.

I wonder if those people that tend to ignore components ignore them completely

The reason I bring this up is I suspect that people ignore them completely are under the assumption that the rule requires you to track individual components, when it doesn't.