One in every game, right?
Mine is the Fumble rule. Everybody loves it. I absolutely cannot stand it. It's not in the game, folks. A natural 1 is a MISS, nothing more. I don't drop my sword, and I don't hit my companion, and I don't hurt myself. I don't draw a card, either (Gamemastery, I'm looking at you).
When I roll a 1 and the DM gloats and tells me to roll percents for the fumble chart, or tells me to roll again to see if it's a really drastic fumble, I get annoyed. If that roll causes (or CAN cause) me to incapacitate or kill another PC or myself, I will walk out of the game and not come back.
So what's yours?
(Edited to correct typo and add final question)
Mine is the Fumble rule.
i don't like that houserule, either, but i do have a funny story as a result of it:
i was in a 2nd edition monty haul game, in which the group seemed to be unbeatable. well, my dwarf fighter rolled a natural 1, followed by a critical hit, which reduced the other mighty fighter to -6 (iirc) hit points.
apparently, the only thing that could defeat us was each other. :-)
The natural one yeah, that is horrible. Not just annoying it throws off game balance and makes your world stupid. The post wonderful sword master ever to live drops his blade one time in 20? Further it makes builds that depend on fewer powerful strikes more powerful then those that don't so even if the classes are balance before this rule well now the less you roll attack rolls less you mess up the party. Wizards and other casters get comparatively more powerful while fighters get weaker. Same thing for natural one on skill checks, horrible call.
|
Fumbles rock.
Last game, my PCs are fighting a Glarbezu. One player is really really badly trying to get Glabrezu's attention away from himself, and suddenly the demon fumbles an attack. I draw a card, come up with Bruised Ego: Must attack the current target for 1d4 rounds.
Sweet :)
And as for hated house rules, massive damage. Ugh !
Fumbles are a time honored tradition harking back all the way to 1st ed. I really don't mind them.
|
Fumbles have always just been house rules, and they're terrible ideas as well as they impact the party 10000% more of the time then they'll impact a monster.
Some orc rolls a 1, drops a sword, people laugh and talk about how awesome fumble charts are. Then a PC fumbles, looses an eye/ear/limb/ally due to some horrible chart. Your going fumble a lot more as a PC then any of the monsters, because your supposed to be the one surviving encounters. Bad rule.
I also hate spell points. I really do, I don't care how much you like them if I have a mana bar I'd damn well better be playing a console or computer RPG and not sitting at a table with my friends trying to role play.
A houserule I hate? Psionics are different. I mean, I'm going around blowing people up with fiery laser beams. Why does the distinction have to be drawn between one fiery laser beam and another?
I also hate spell points. I really do, I don't care how much you like them if I have a mana bar I'd damn well better be playing a console or computer RPG and not sitting at a table with my friends trying to role play.
Er... every core spellcaster uses spell points, chief. That's what spell slots are; points that you spend to cast spells. You just have the added layer of bureaucracy with ten pools of points to keep track of instead of one.
I use critical fumbles, in combat and for skills... but a natural "1" isn't a fumble unless confirmed (a second roll would be a failure). And I allow confirmed critical skill checks to add an action point to the character's repertoire, which he can later use to negate a fumble. So it all comes out in the wash, but adds fun in the meantime.
In response to the OP, the only houserules I hate are the ones applied Just To Be a Dick. You know. "I'd like to play a paladin!" DM looks at you like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons and sneers, "I do not believe that any player has the moral fibre to represent that class, so paladins are not allowed." That kind of stuff. Banning things just for the love of a power trip.
I use critical fumbles, in combat and for skills... but a natural "1" isn't a fumble unless confirmed (a second roll would be a failure). And I allow confirmed critical skill checks to add an action point to the character's repertoire, which he can later use to negate a fumble. So it all comes out in the wash, but adds fun in the meantime.
Good idea. I'm going to have to lift that.
|
I hate it when a DM does crit/fumble skills. 1 out of 20 times, that goblin will see you no matter how high your hide check is... and if there's 20 of them, one of them is bound to see you.
I also hate spell points. I really do, I don't care how much you like them if I have a mana bar I'd damn well better be playing a console or computer RPG and not sitting at a table with my friends trying to role play.
So you don't like change, is that it? Like Viletta said, it's not really that much different except that the points you get can be used for any level spell, rather than having 5 points for 3rd, 4 for 2nd, and 4 for 1st... Having more flexibility doesn't seem like something that is confined to Video Games.
I hate it when a DM does crit/fumble skills.
See above. Make 'em confirm. Use action points/hero points.
There are ways to implement them without punishing the PCs.
|
I can't think of any rules I hate. I do try to minimize fumbles though. My rule is it takes two natural ones to threaten a fumble. Then a third roll to confirm. I prefer fumbles to be rarer than crits. I do use the 3-20 rule, where 3 20's insta-kill the target. That makes things more acceptable to me without denying fumbles and crits to the players that like them.
I use critical fumbles, in combat and for skills... but a natural "1" isn't a fumble unless confirmed (a second roll would be a failure).This makes hydras and tigers the clumsiest creatures around, and penalizes TWF and full BAB a fair bit. It especially sucks if you're full BAB at high levels; your low-score iterative attacks are as likely to hit yourself as the enemy. Critical fumbles on melee penalize the classes that spend a lot of time in melee, and they already have it rough.
So the goblin rolls a nat.20 Spot? Ok ... that's maybe a 32, still won't see your high-level Rogue or Ranger with their skill ranks and magic and buffs and circumstance and so forth.1 is not autofail and 20 is not autosuccess on skills RAW.
So,
If you 2 weapon fight you are clumsier. Its harder and your trying to do more and concentrate on more things. As for hydra, have you ever seen the normal presentation of them, where their heads fight eachother almost as much as they fight you?
As for house rules I don't like, teleportation nerfs.
edit: removed point 2, cause I misread MIB's second point
I use critical fumbles, in combat and for skills... but a natural "1" isn't a fumble unless confirmed (a second roll would be a failure).This makes hydras and tigers the clumsiest creatures around, and penalizes TWF and full BAB a fair bit. It especially sucks if you're full BAB at high levels; your low-score iterative attacks are as likely to hit yourself as the enemy. Critical fumbles on melee penalize the classes that spend a lot of time in melee, and they already have it rough.
So the goblin rolls a nat.20 Spot? Ok ... that's maybe a 32, still won't see your high-level Rogue or Ranger with their skill ranks and magic and buffs and circumstance and so forth.1 is not autofail and 20 is not autosuccess on skills RAW.
That's why I use all primary/secondary attacks must roll a 1 to pop a fumble, a fumble makes the fumbler flat footed, and provokes AoO.
As an example, a TWF with a +15 BAB, makes 3 primary attacks and 2 secondary attacks. he rolls horribly getting 1, 1, 4 and a 1, 12. He avoids fumbling even though he rolled 3 1's. Had he rolled 1,1,1/4,12 or 1,4,12/1,1 he would have fumbled. By using this method, you reduce the chances of fumbling with additional iterative attacks.
It makes it a 1 in 8000 chance to fumble with 3 attacks and 1 in 400 with 2 attacks.
I don't roll confirmations that slows the game down too much.
Note: a TWF with a single attack in each hand does still have 2 chances to fumble, because he isn't a swordmaster just yet.
1. This makes hydras and tigers the clumsiest creatures around, and
2. penalizes TWF and full BAB a fair bit. It especially sucks if you're full BAB at high levels
1. This is a problem why, exactly? Hydras in particular are tough enough in melee anyway.
2. Except for the extra chances for action points earned to offset the fumbles (or use for other things), which even things out again, and which you conveniently ignore. Action points are disproportionately useful for melee characters.
|
I'm on the fence with fumbles (since that's been a common discussion on this posting); it's Ok for some games (d6 Star Wars anyone?), but not suited for every style.
One house rule that I disliked, from the group that taught me DnD (2ed) is "mulligans". Between dice rolls they didn't like, or actions they regretted, they were allowed one mulligan per game session to undo a choice their character made (or get a reroll). The rerolling I didn't mind, but I think it's more fun to roll with the bad choices as much as the good ones.
|
|
I also have a hatred for fumble rules. Especially when a DM suddenly tells me that a 1 on a skill roll is a fumble, even though I used that potion to get a +10 bonus on my roll.
Also for some reason, DM's tend to believe that you're evil if you choose your own race as a favored enemy. Where in the PHB does it say that?
It's not so much the houserules though, it's the DMs. I played with one who was DMing 4th for the first time and came up with all kinds of houserules. For me, it was over after one session.
One in every game, right?
Mine is the Fumble rule. Everybody loves it. I absolutely cannot stand it. It's not in the game, folks. A natural 1 is a MISS, nothing more. I don't drop my sword, and I don't hit my companion, and I don't hurt myself. I don't draw a card, either (Gamemastery, I'm looking at you).
When I roll a 1 and the DM gloats and tells me to roll percents for the fumble chart, or tells me to roll again to see if it's a really drastic fumble, I get annoyed. If that roll causes (or CAN cause) me to incapacitate or kill another PC or myself, I will walk out of the game and not come back.
So what's yours?
(Edited to correct typo and add final question)
We play with fumble on a natural 1, but it has to be confirmed. that way it works pretty nice.
GRU|
|
When I DM, I don't use fumbles because I have zero desire to have yet another thing to keep track of when I'm running a half-dozen figures on the board. I generally don't like them, because of bad experiences in other editions (archers, especially, as the more arrows you fire, the more likely you are to lose your bowstring and not be an archer anymore, making the role an exercise in futility, like playing a wizard who has a chance of losing his voice every time he casts a spell), although in some games, like GURPS, where they are integrated into the combat system, I think they are fun.
The only 'house rule' I've actively disliked was in college, playing GURPS with Steffan O'Sullivan, who *loathed* how effective Flame Jet was as a combat spell. He made a house rule that every time you critically failed a Flame Jet, you'd lose a finger. We used to joke about all my nine-fingered mages, but really, none of them lived long anyway. He had a gift for rolling critical hits on these offenders and one-shot killing them, and none of them lived long enough to make it to eight fingers. :)
Critical rules, whether hits or fumbles, definitely add 'swinginess!'
One day you're doing triple damage with that Bane crossbow bolt, the next day you're taking quadruple damage from that scythe-weilding Destruction Cleric who just used his daily Smite on you.
Our take on Crit/Fumble:
Skills: A natural 1 counts as -10, modified for skills, etc., so you might actually still succeed, albeit unlikely. A natural 20 counts as 30, again modified for skills, etc.
Attack rolls: A natural 1 provokes an attack of opportunity. Most of our attacks of opportunities actually come from fumbling. The in-game explanation is that on a natural 1, the person almost falls, almost drops his sword, or just makes an attack that is so stupid that it leaves a big hole in person's defense.
I use critical fumbles, in combat and for skills...
Yeah, a "fumble" on a skill would make me instantly walk out on a game. A 1 isn't even an auto-miss on skills, no reason I should fumble. If I find out a DM uses a fumble table, I usually won't even declare ones, I'll just say I fail/miss.
As for house rules I don't like, teleportation nerfs.
Not sure what you mean here. I might not have encountered that.
Also for some reason, DM's tend to believe that you're evil if you choose your own race as a favored enemy. Where in the PHB does it say that?
I think it did say something to that effect in the 3.0 PHB in the Ranger section. I could be wrong.
|
Also for some reason, DM's tend to believe that you're evil if you choose your own race as a favored enemy. Where in the PHB does it say that?
That was in the 3.0 Ranger rules:
(A ranger can only select his own race as a favored enemy if he is evil.)
Seems to have been taken out of 3.5, and probably just as well, for the reasons others have mentioned.
But it was there once, which is probably where people were getting the idea from...
Our take on Crit/Fumble:
Skills: A natural 1 counts as -10, modified for skills, etc., so you might actually still succeed, albeit unlikely. A natural 20 counts as 30, again modified for skills, etc.
My house rule for skills is when you roll a natural one, you take the skill ranks, add your ability score modifier, and other normal modifiers and add 1 to it, and that's your result. Because that's the freakin' rule.
Attack rolls: A natural 1 provokes an attack of opportunity. Most of our attacks of opportunities actually come from fumbling. The in-game explanation is that on a natural 1, the person almost falls, almost drops his sword, or just makes an attack that is so stupid that it leaves a big hole in person's defense.
My house rule for that, is if you roll a natural 1 in combat, you miss, no matter what your modifiers are. Because that's the freakin' rule.
Hehe... can you tell I REALLY hate fumble rules? I'm being kind of tongue-in-cheek on some of this, but when I roll a 1 and the DM tells me something special happens, my shoulders clench up. I might even black out for a bit.
It's so common I envision this happening at my table when I have a new player who's used to rolling to confirm fumbles.
NEWBIE: I roll a ... aw, crap, rolled a 1.
ME: OK, next person in init order..?
NEWBIE: Should I confirm?
ME: If you want to.
NEWBIE: I roll... oh! Another 1.
ME: OK, great, you miss. Next person...
NEWBIE: Do I drop my sword?
ME: Only if you want to. Next per-
NEWBIE: Well do I take damage?
ME: Look, you're really holding up my game, here. Are you sure you've played this game before?
Critical rules, whether hits or fumbles, definitely add 'swinginess!'
When I was running a 2e game, I gave the players a vote on whether or not to use the crit tables in the Combat & Tactics book. Only one player wanted to use it. One player just wasn't interested in rolling more dice on more tables. Another pointed out that he didn't want it used on him.
Deadly crit tables is another HR I hate. I played in a game where the DM used the original Arduin Grimoire, and literally every single fight ended up with a player character brutally and permanently (until regenerated) maimed, if not killed outright despite their HP total. Most of the results on the table were: "[vital body part] damaged beyond repair, death in 1-n rounds." The rest of the entries were limbs you could live without, but not happily. One PC had a buttock torn off. I'm not making that up.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Deadly crit tables is another HR I hate. I played in a game where the DM used the original Arduin Grimoire, and literally every single fight ended up with a player character brutally and permanently (until regenerated) maimed, if not killed outright despite their HP total. Most of the results on the table were: "[vital body part] damaged beyond repair, death in 1-n rounds." The rest of the entries were limbs you could live without, but not happily. One PC had a buttock torn off. I'm not making that up.
Critical rules, whether hits or fumbles, definitely add 'swinginess!'
clearly a set of cheeky rules.
I don't mind the fumbles/crits. I do use the 1 'roll to confirm' rule, but we use the full attack bonus. And I love the swinginess of the critical/fumble decks.
We also use the -10/30 rule for skills. I think that showed up in the Epic Level Handbook.
|
|
My house rule for Fumble checks:
When you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll, make a DC 15 Combat Manuever check. If you fail this check, you must drop any items you are holding or you become flat-footed and lose the rest of your turn as you recover from overextending yourself on your attack. If you fail this check by 5 or more, you automatically become flat-footed and must drop any items you are holding. Abilities such as a Rogue's Uncanny Dodge affect this condition as normal.
Not sure what you mean here. I might not have encountered that.
As for house rules I don't like, teleportation nerfs.
I've had a couple GMs who hated telleport. 1 made it an in world effect that anyone telleporting would take damage as your body was ripped appart. After a number of campaign like this in the same world, he let the players figure out what was causing it and remove it, but as a rule I don't like it. It felt like he was nerfing too many spells because he felt 1 was broken. If he just nerfed telleport, it wouldn't have been as bad.
|
|
My house rule for skills is when you roll a natural one, you take the skill ranks, add your ability score modifier, and other normal modifiers and add 1 to it, and that's your result. Because that's the freakin' rule.My house rule for that, is if you roll a natural 1 in combat, you miss, no matter what your modifiers are. Because that's the freakin' rule.
Hehe... can you tell I REALLY hate fumble rules? I'm being kind of tongue-in-cheek on some of this, but when I roll a 1 and the DM tells me something special happens, my shoulders clench up. I might even black out for a bit.
+1,000,000
I loathe fumble houserules.
Add me to the 'hate fumbles' list. If I want to be the comedic relief, I will play the comedic relief.
Hit Locations. I do not care how brilliant you think your carefully crafted hit location chart is, nothing destroys my immersion quicker than finishing off someone by cutting off their big toe.
Arbitrary Nerfing. Yes, I understand said Ability/Class/Feat/Skill/Spell/Race ruined your last game. Did you try talking to the player before axing the option? Because, I am willing to bet, the player abused another Ability/Class/Feat/Skill/Spell/Race that you now have to nerf before you finally just ejected the player.
Yeah, a "fumble" on a skill would make me instantly walk out on a game. A 1 isn't even an auto-miss on skills, no reason I should fumble. If I find out a DM uses a fumble table, I usually won't even declare ones, I'll just say I fail/miss.
Since you quoted me directly as the subject of your tirade, allow me to thank you for again ignoring the "confirm" caveat, and the critical success rules. It's so much easier to denigrate something if you bury 2/3 of the data that don't support your predetermined opinion. As it turns out, my players don't "walk out" because all houserules are subject to group approval; they're not handed down from on high. But don't let that stop you on your way out the door...
The reason I hate (most) fumble houserules is because they tend to make a 20th level fighter 4 times more likely to drop his sword or stab himself in the kidneys in any full attack as a non-proficient level 1 commoner. Granted, there are probably some variations that compensate for this in some way. These merely annoy me and my intention is not to discuss those here. In defense of fumble rules though, some could occasionally maybe give a DM a chance to apply some of the weird rules you see in the core books here and there that deal with lost limbs, etc., when there are no rules (except vorpal swords and hydras) explaining how limbs/appendages can possibly get lost or removed in the first place. How do you cut off someone's leg in D&D3.x? I'd probably allow it during a coup-de-grace, but that's definitely another houserule.
I haven't played in a game where the DM ruled that skill rolls auto-succeed/fail on a natural 20 or 1, but I wouldn't like that either. At a certain point, a rogue should be able to automatically tumble past an enemy without provoking AoO, just as a caster of sufficient power should automatically succeed at casting on the defensive. IMO. So no auto-failed skill rolls on a natural 1 for me, please. Conversely, a character's personal best (ie. a natural 20 rolled on, say, a spot check) shouldn't necessarily always be good enough to spot someone of a higher level with max'ed out ranks in Hide no matter how well they have rolled. What if the other guy rolled a 20 on his hide check too? They can't both auto-succeed...
...And as for hated house rules, massive damage. Ugh !
What houserule is that? I'm only familiar with the massive damage rule from the core rules.
Kang
But don't let that stop you on your way out the door...
What's wrong, Kirth?
We have a simple fumble rule roll a 1 and drop your weapon rule so fumbles arn't that bad.
The house rule I personally hate is the DM saying NO evil alignments.
He has loosened up a bit on it in our current campaign so I could play the type of amoral wizard I personally enjoy.
He quotes the PHB about not allowing evil alignments
I dont run around killing everything under the sun when I'm evil nor is my charecter some sort of savage beast but seeing all the really cool spells that evil has such as animate dead,dance of ruin(BoVD) and a few other choice selections makes me want to use them in play but "good guys" would never ever do anything like that after all timmy they drink milk,eat all their vegetables and then ride off into the sunset. To me being a enchantment focused mage and turning the bad guy with the low will save into your thrall forever is more evil than animating a few zombies but thats not how D&D sees it.
OK done ranting.
|
Group I played with in high school had a bad one. This was 2nd ed. Not only on a natural one did you hit yourself, on a natural 2 you hit a fellow party member. I worked to change these and eventually did but it bugged me at first that everytime you swung a weapon, you had a 1 in 10 chance of hitting a party member. At least it made sure that none of us followed the thief with a vorpal sword too closely. And one time he did get ahead of himself not just us...
I am generally not a fan of evil characters because most players use them as an excuse to just be a jerk. In my opinion, evil characters also require what I label 'pro active' players. These are players who create characters with their own motives and do not sit back and wait for the hook. They go after what they want.
With mature players and agreeing before the start of the campaign that it is going to be an 'evil campaign', evil characters can be a lot of fun.
Since you quoted me directly as the subject of your tirade, allow me to thank you for again ignoring the "confirm" caveat, and the critical success rules. It's so much easier to denigrate something if you bury 2/3 of the data that don't support your predetermined opinion.
Carpe chill pill, man. I didn't "fail to quote it," I don't need to quote it. A fumble rule with a confirm roll is still a fumble rule, and therefore still a house rule that I still hate.
As it turns out, my players don't "walk out" because all houserules are subject to group approval; they're not handed down from on high.
This brings up a good point. Often they are. I know the DM I play with now didn't ask me my opinion when he made the rule. He never said "How do people feel about rolling to confirm a fumble on a natural 1?"
But don't let that stop you on your way out the door...
Immaterial since I'm not playing your game. Geez, you're touchy. ;)