What's the strangest house rule you've ever heard of?

[mmu1]

People are afraid of wizards because of their strange mystical powers, and need to make a Will save to grapple them.

Any miniature used in the game needs to be mounted on a square 1" base. (So no Reaper minis unless they're re-mounted...)

 

[JoeBlank]

Re: House Rules IRL

Ever since it was mentioned in an episode of Charmed that the sister's club had a two drink limit, I have wondered about this.

Is it because it was an early evenig TV show and they didn't want to seen condoning alcohol, or do American nightclubs really have things like this?

If so, that is a much stranger house rule than anyone could come up with for D&D. How do they make any money?

Just wonderin'

glass.

BG already responded, but I think glass is a little confused. It is a two drink minimum, not maximum. Your comments above make it sound like you think the patrons are limited to two drinks, when in fact they are required to buy at least two drinks.

And as BG said, common in comedy clubs, and some strip clubs. If there is no cover charge they have to be assured of making some money off of the patrons, rather than have them just taking up space and enjoying the entertainment for free.

 

[glass]

Re: Re: House Rules IRL

BG already responded, but I think glass is a little confused. It is a two drink minimum, not maximum. Your comments above make it sound like you think the patrons are limited to two drinks, when in fact they are required to buy at least two drinks.

And as BG said, common in comedy clubs, and some strip clubs. If there is no cover charge they have to be assured of making some money off of the patrons, rather than have them just taking up space and enjoying the entertainment for free.

Not in P3 (the club operated by the sisters in Charmed). It is definitely a maximum.

glass.

 

[Sam]

while i obviously don't agree with Khenemetsobek's method of presentation, i will say that for every gaming group i've been a member of, that "Call rule" would cause more problems than its worth. i must admit i cannot see any positive benefit to it at all. to each his own.

As the GM, I have quite a bit of leeway on how I interpret the character's actions. If something is obviously deadly (or potentially very deadly with no way to retreive the body), I tend to work around killing the character.

I admit that it won't work for every group, nor am I suggesting that others use it. I simply posted what I use and what works for us. It helps to keep the game on track, limits totally off the wall comments (most of the time), and can add a bit of levity to the play session. To each his own. If my players didn't like the rule and didn't use it, I wouldn't keep it in. It's worked for our group, your milage may vary.

--Sam

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Re: Invisibility = teh lose?

Every last creature in the entire world can detect an invisible creature by making a spot check DC 20 well enough to target his or her square with an attack, a volley of arrows, three fireballs, etc.

Also, everyone is constantly looking around them in a 360-degree arc, totally negating any point in making a Move Silently check, as they're all scanning for little upturned clouds of dust.

So which part of this is the house rule? 3ed has no facing, so yes everyone IS "constantly looking around them in a 360-degree arc", and the DMG sets the spot check to notice an invisible person as 20 (also says +20 to pinpoint the square, not sure if that means a total of 40 DC but even if so its a rules question, not a house rule).

My DM has issues with me being able to turn invisible nine times a day. Wait, my mistake, seven times a day, now that I've been level-drained three times.

no offense, sounds more like you have issues with the rules for invisibility being enforced... if you're moving, you can be spotted, just not easily.

Kahuna burger

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Invisibility = teh lose?

So which part of this is the house rule? 3ed has no facing, so yes everyone IS "constantly looking around them in a 360-degree arc", and the DMG sets the spot check to notice an invisible person as 20 (also says +20 to pinpoint the square, not sure if that means a total of 40 DC but even if so its a rules question, not a house rule).



no offense, sounds more like you have issues with the rules for invisibility being enforced... if you're moving, you can be spotted, just not easily.

Kahuna burger

Nope. Sounds like the DM is being a dick.

The DC20 is not for just happening to be looking in the same direction as an invisible person. It is for someone actively looking for said invisible person.

The DM has basically given everyone in the world the elf ability to automatically spot secret doors but for anyone invisible and at no range penalty.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Re: Re: Re: Invisibility = teh lose?

The DC20 is not for just happening to be looking in the same direction as an invisible person. It is for someone actively looking for said invisible person.

nope, that would be a search check. The DMG under invisibility pretty clearly spells it out as a chance to "notice" an invisible person when you had no idea someone might be there. pg 78.

Kahuna Burger

PS and there's still no facing, so "looking in the same direction" is irrelevant.

 

[Craer]

Kahuna Burger, as it turns out, it is partially both. It's not that I have issues with the DM enforcing the rules on spotting an invisible creature, it's that I have a problem with the DM mandating that 1) Everyone can do it with great ease, and 2) Everyone is always attempting to do so.

So you were right. Perhaps it isn't a house rule, but it was an offhand post made by a slightly frustrated gamer. So, in order to put this thread back on track, a house rule that was odd to me is that the DM (and my other DM, who is friends with my first) has created a new skill called "Alertness". The house rule basically states that unless you're actively searching and alert for something to happen, you get a -10 penalty to all Spot and Listen checks. This can be helped by taking ranks in Alertness (modified by your wisdom), which is a class skill for everyone. For every rank you take, the -10 penalty is reduced by one. If you take ranks in it to the point where your total after wisdom modifier adjustment is above ten, you get a bonus to spot and listen for every point above ten on a one-for-one basis, but only when the character is "unaware".

This leads to characters who, when actively searching for something or listening, get a +6 or so modifer, but when staring at the wall and being thickheaded, the character gets a +11 or so.

Seems silly to me, really. Combine this with the whole invisibility issue I spoke of, and now it is more apparent why I've got so many issues with how the DM does things in this regard, seeing as how almost every NPC has very high ranks in the skill.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Heard of, never played : 6 second rule. You had six seconds to 'DO' everything that your character needed to do. That includes roles free actions, partial actions, hasted actions, cleaving, etc... From what I understood the DM took about 5 minutes on his turn and the players had 6 seconds each. 2 sessions of frustrated players and the DM was voted off the island.

 

[Zappo]

I've heard of a guy who enforced racial class and level limits, in 3E. Apparently, he thinks it's more realistic.