D&D 4E Worst House Rules You've Encountered in 4E

[cmbarona]

I caught this thread over on the official WOTC forums:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...leshomebrew_youve_ever_seen_used_at_the_table

which inspired this thread. What are some of the worst house rules you've encountered? Why were they so bad?

I'll start:

When the PHB was first released, my DM thought item creation was incredibly bland. So, he requires magic items to be created in the following way:

1. You must purchase a scroll which is used up in the enchantment. This scroll contains the formula for the enchantment, and it costs 10% of the total cost of the item.
2. You must enchant an item worth at least 50% of the item's total cost. The item could be worth up to 80% of the total cost. I suspect this was a throwback to the Masterwork requirement in 3.5, which he played for years before 4e.
3. The remainder, at least 10%, must be made of residuum.

At first, this just made things more complicated than they needed to be to make items. No real mechanical detriment. However, he kept these rules post-AV Transfer Enchantment ritual. So, if I found an awesome enchantment and just wanted to switch weapons or armor types, I had to buy an item worth 50% of the item I actually wanted. If I have a standard set of 16th-level magic armor, and I want one of the niftier 16th-level enchantments, e.g., summoned, I need to shell out an extra 10% for the new armor's formula.

Ultimately more of a nuisance than anything else, but it still felt like we were being nerfed just to appease the DM's sense of "how things should work."

 

[DanmarLOK]

Actually there's lots that could go on this list I would suppose but it's really a matter of personal opinion. Personally I think any critical hit (or worse fumble) system isn't good. Critical hits are 5% of all attack rolls. Having your head explode or your leg chopped off (exaggerated to make a point) on average every 2 combats (assuming the player is attacked 10 times per combat) doesn't seem like much fun. Dropping, breaking your weapon or stabbing your friend 1 in 20 attacks? That's heroic.

Wounding or Penalties Over Time house rule systems from damage taken again don't seem like a lot of fun. Lead to nothing but spiral of death syndrome.

Any system that turns the game into Mercantilism and Merchants again not a lot of fun.

Magic items that require a long process to determine what they are. "Each day you use it you can try to roll to see if you can figure out another power or get a better estimate of the powers."

The inability to sell an item for something resembling full price of any item (granted that's an official rule).

 

[eamon]

The inability to sell an item for something resembling full price of any item (granted that's an official rule).

Plug: try a simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot. ;-)

 

[cmbarona]

I have to second the critical fumble rules. I have yet to see one which doesn't 1) over-penalize 5% of all attacks, or 2) have enough safeguards against over-penalization that it becomes an irrelevant time-waster.

Along similar lines, I have never been a fan of critical hit/fumble charts, but thankfully I haven't seen any since my group started 4e.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

One of the first house rules I made, just because it sounded cool and seemed to make more sense physically, was, "You can stand as a minor action which provokes OA's, or as a move action which does not." Not well thought out.

 

[chronoplasm]

1) Can't use intimidate in combat to scare away monsters.
2) Can't knock monsters unconscious to interrogate them later. Nope, gotta kill them and take their stuff.
3) Can't do a skill challenge to haggle with the shop keeper. Come on! I'm only ten gold short of having a bag of holding. Let me do a diplomacy check or something!
4) Can't even pickpocket people. What's the point of having the thievery skill then?

 

[DanmarLOK]

1) Can't use intimidate in combat to scare away monsters.
2) Can't knock monsters unconscious to interrogate them later. Nope, gotta kill them and take their stuff.
3) Can't do a skill challenge to haggle with the shop keeper. Come on! I'm only ten gold short of having a bag of holding. Let me do a diplomacy check or something!
4) Can't even pickpocket people. What's the point of having the thievery skill then?

Those are technically complaints with your DM and or the official rules not house rules.

You can use Intimidate to try to make a bloodied opponent surrender per RAW. Discuss it with your DM but I'd certainly allow that to also work to 'scare them away'.

I think one of the dragon splat books introduces subdual damage? I may be wrong.

It's certainly within DM fiat to allow a simple diplomacy check versus insight (or wisdom or whatever) to try to haggle. But honestly I'd be more inclined to simply roleplay it out personally on occasion and only make it an opposed dice roll if it was a constant thing.

Pickpocketing falls under the thievery umbrella just like disable devices etc. Opportunities to pick pockets fall under the umbrella of your DM.

 

[Engilbrand]

The rules flat out state that you don't need to kill everything that hits 0 hit points. Can the DM occasionally say that the guy dies? Sure. Is it pretty crappy to do it every time? Yes, and it smells like a railroad. "If they question this guy, then they'll find out things I don't want them to know. That's no good!" Now, I would sympathize if the players wanted to interrogate every enemy they fight. That's when you all sit down and talk about the game, though. DM fiat without a good reason annoys me.

 

[Dayspire]

Knocking out a goblin with a fireball or lightning bolt is frankly ridiculous. Especially when you consider that the player can (as per the rules) decide that person A, B, and D are killed, but person C is knocked cold. Hunh??

In my game, you can knock out people only with a melee attack. Period. There is no penalty (like in 3.5). It may give a slight penalty to ranged and magic-users, but I'm willing to have that considering the other house rules I have.

 

[Engilbrand]

While I can understand the hesitation in letting some magic knock someone out, I also do a lot of abstraction, and 0 hit points doesn't just happen because someone is dead. Why not "shape" the fireball so that it's only blasting along the lower half of the body? The enemies then drop to 0, not from death, but because the lower half of the body is severely burned and they are no longer a threat.