When in doubt, follow the rules

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Quasqueton - I'd agree! It's horrible - you get the 'it sounds reasonable' reaction to the first request... Few minutes later realise the same thing might be game breaking!

What was the situation, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[JoeBlank]

Sounds like a good rule of thumb to me.

In the situation you mention, I think it is also important to make clear to your players that you might make quick judgments at the game table to move things along, but that these will be situational. You will then review and perhaps even open the subject for discussion after the session (my groups usually do this over email or yahoo groups) and make an informed decision on how the rule will be handled in the future. But also make clear that this will never retroactively affect that gaming table decision. As you mentioned, all the more reason to stick to the rules as written during a session and make decisions about exceptions to the rules/house rules when you have more time.

 

[Janx]

Ok, I'll bite - what's so wrong about such a house rule? Two ways of looking at it:
--snip--

2. Play balance: This house-rule allows a rogue to use a bow and still gain sneak attack damage. Is this inherently unbalanced, compared to the core rules requirement that the rogue can only gain sneak attack damage with a ranged attack if the target is flat-footed?

I know one player who joined our high level game with a PC that shot 8 times a round. Let me spell that for you: E I G H T

imagine getting sneak attack with that. The PC had some feats, 2 crossbows that magically reloaded.

I suspect the rationalization behind disallowing it, is that being physically flanked is different than having a bow aimed at you (though I'd be nervous about that too (and nervous about being the guy helping you flank)). Since figures have no facing now, there's no clear rear attack anymore, so sneak attack has to apply when the figure is off-guard, or forced to expose his rear to some extent. having two people on opposite sides of you pretty much forces you to stand sideways to them so you can see both, yet both have access to your weaker side (the back). A bow doesn't quite do this (if a sniper takes aim at you, do you know it?).

 

[Henry]

Where possible, I try to follow the rules; rarely have I had a house-rule that backfired on me. I'm just lucky.

As for sneak-attacking: You also have the situation that a ranged attack is harder to defend against than a melee attack, unless you have cover. Someone who wants to have ranged sneak attacks needs to specialize in Hiding and sniping (by 6th or 7th level, you can possibly get a large enough hide score to take the teeth out of that -20 penalty!)

 

[Mercule]

The more I game, especially 3.x, the more I'm convinced of this. I've changed a few rules for flavor, and am not entirely certain that was a good idea, either. I've got players who want rules changed "because they're silly", which pretty much means "I don't like how this impacts me".

Something else that I've noticed is that changes for the sake of "realism" often add little of said realism, but remove playability.

 

[punkorange]

Just because something happened once, doesn't make it written law for the campaign.

Exactly.

Sometimes the moment calls for a ruling, and looking in the book to find it often distracts the game. A quick one-time ruling is no harm done.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Yup. Comparing ranged-attack-sneak-attack-allowed rogues to TWF rogues:

TWF, Weapon Finesse: 1 extra attack, both at -2, using finesse.
Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot: 1 extra attack, both at -1 attack, +1 damage, and you're not in melee and can't be full-attacked.

It works out a bit unbalanced in play. The not-being-in-melee bit is the real kicker.

 

[EricNoah]

House rules are fine when thought out and folks are ready to roll with it when you need to tweak/adjust. Making up a new house rule on the spur of the moment is another matter. If you don't know the rule or can't find it then of course you'll just have to wing it, but players should have the expectation that you will always seek to improve the game and thus adjust rules that are making the game less fun.

 

[diaglo]

the rules are guidelines.

i follow the guidelines.

 

[francisca]

the rules are guidelines.

i follow the guidelines.

I'm with Diaglo on this.

When it comes to on the spot rulings, I always make them with the proviso that I will re-think it away from the table, and may change the rulling for subsequent similar occurences. So far that has worked. In some cases (probably 60% or so), this post-table thinking completely validates the RAW. In other cases it leads to a new house rule. Neither case crops up often enough for me to question the soundness of the game systems I play. (And no, I have not played Synabbar or FATAL)