What rule does your group ignore?

[Zaran]

Some of you are talking about house rules. Please try to refrain from that as I don't want this thread moved over to the house rule forum. I know it's hard to seperate ignored rules from changed rules.

My group has gotten to the point that we are ignoring almost all of the powers from Dragon as they tend to be either really silly or overpowered. I'd say we ignore everything from Dragon but I know for a fact that we have used a feat or two from Dragon. Staff Training and the feat that lets rapier rogues get their sneak attack when facing a single opponent come to mind.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Kind of a belated follow-up on the "what's in your hands?" issue -- the reason I don't ignore those rules is that I think it makes things too easy for the PCs otherwise.

If you can wear a heavy shield for +2 AC/Ref with no drawbacks whatsoever, then it's like the +2 was free. And similarly (though less effective) for light shields.

If you can wield two weapons, or a two-handed weapon, with no drawbacks whatsoever, then it's like free use of two weapon powers or free extra damage or reach from the two-handed weapon.

I like that there is an opportunity cost to all those things.

That said, I have been known to ignore the fact that someone's hands are full if the player has his PC do something heroic and cool. Want to swing on the chandelier? I'll probably ignore the fact that your PC is carrying a sword-and-heavy-shield, in that case.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Some of you are talking about house rules. Please try to refrain from that as I don't want this thread moved over to the house rule forum. I know it's hard to seperate ignored rules from changed rules.

If you are referring to my own query comment above, I was specifically talking about creating a new thread for the discussion.

 

[Taed]

Another rule that I ignore for simplicity for me (the DM) is to only roll initiative for each TYPE of enemy. For example, with a Goblin Chief, 3 Goblin minions, and 2 Guard Drakes, I'd only roll initiative 3 times (instead of 6) and put them on my initiative board grouped as each type as well. That way, I handle all of the baddies of each type all at once, which makes remembering their various powers and to-hits easier and I'm moving multiple minis at one time. It makes the game go faster and is just simpler for the DM.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Another rule that I ignore for simplicity for me (the DM) is to only roll initiative for each TYPE of enemy. For example, with a Goblin Chief, 3 Goblin minions, and 2 Guard Drakes, I'd only roll initiative 3 times (instead of 6) and put them on my initiative board grouped as each type as well. That way, I handle all of the baddies of each type all at once, which makes remembering their various powers and to-hits easier and I'm moving multiple minis at one time. It makes the game go faster and is just simpler for the DM.

Actually, I believe that it is suggested that DM's do that in the DMG.

 

[jbear]

Well if that was me you're talking about then I apologise. It's a fine line as you point out.

So to correct my post:

We ignore Magic Item use limits because it gets in the way of fun.
We ignore implement use restrictions because it's a crap rule.
We ignore the rule that monster's are aware of the effect of PCs powers because it's more fun to see the PCs powers be used to full effect. Plus, why would the monsters know?
We ignore the rule about creatures that have reach only making OAs against adjacent creatures, because the PCs are tough enough as it is, they need to be challenged more. Plus it makes sense and its fun for me.
We ignore the rule (sometimes) that Insight is not a magical 6th sense, because I'm soft.
We ignore the limits set on point distribution when characters are made because I want my players to have the PCs they want, getting around Stat combinations that would make some combinations unviable or feat requirements unachievable.
We ignore the rule about Intimidate making bloodied creatures surrender because my super hard mega-villain doesnot suddenly surrender while still surrounded by his hordes of faithful minions just because he is bloodied!
We ignore the rule that intimidate and bluff can be used 1/encounter as a standard action because the fact that it requires a standard action means noone uses it. It stands in the way of fun.

I hope that is more along the right lines

 

[Karmic_vegeance]

One rule my group's going to be ignoring by force: the existence of Iron Armbands of Power. Just because they exist, it feels like they devalue any and all other heroic-tier arms slot items I could dole out (especially now that the Warden has dropped his heavy shield for a glaive).

 

[TarionzCousin]

We ignore the fact that all halflings are cannibals.

--but never turn our backs on the little fellas. Them's sneaky buggers.

 

[Pickles JG]

Another rule that I ignore for simplicity for me (the DM) is to only roll initiative for each TYPE of enemy. For example, with a Goblin Chief, 3 Goblin minions, and 2 Guard Drakes, I'd only roll initiative 3 times (instead of 6) and put them on my initiative board grouped as each type as well. That way, I handle all of the baddies of each type all at once, which makes remembering their various powers and to-hits easier and I'm moving multiple minis at one time. It makes the game go faster and is just simpler for the DM.

Wow I had no idea people rolled initiative for each individual monster separately. Sometimes I split up groups if there are a lot of one type like a pack of 6 wolves or something.

 

[OchreJelly]

Lets see.

I hadn't realized the dropping the magic item use limit was so popular. Chalk me up for that one.

The other major one is the limit on the number of immediate actions you get per round. I haven't bothered auditing this one on my players, and I let the monsters do it as well and so far it hasn't been an issue. If there is some balance reason for this restriction I'm not seeing it. Arguably it makes immediate actions more powerful, but so what? Players still have to pick that power at the expensive of others. Who cares if they are geared-up to be super reactive if that's how they want to play. Otherwise we stick to the obvious: you still only get one opportunity action per enemy at a time.

To me, both of these rules fall into the area where they take up too much head-space to be bothered with.

I'm also seriously considering rewriting "insubstantial" because I think the mechanics for it are poorly done.