But don't let that stop you on your way out the door...What's wrong, Kirth?
When you take the time upthread to describe some (but not by any means all) of the ways to make a fumble rule NOT suck for players, and people carefully ignore that and yell "fumbles make everybody kill themselves and you suck if you use them!"
Never mind what the actual effects of a fumble are, or what the triggering conditions are, or what other rules are in place to make up for them, etc. People can't (or more likely won't) think past "fumble = badwrongnofun."
Still, it would be fine; everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if they're only taking into account a fourth of the picture. Except that people then use the "reply" key to single me out as the "badwrongnofun" guy and then rant about how they'd walk out of my game. Guess what? They're not invited.
----
It's like mentioning a living will and having people start ranting about "death panels."
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate all house rules related to magic, particularly those designed to implement the DM's home brewed Universal Theory of Everything Magic. I won't even bother playing a spellcaster if I have to learn about mana and how it can be tapped for spells or the 19 different spheres of magic which are the basis for every spell.
And god help you if it's an elemental themed magic system. Not only is an elemental themed magic system overdone, it's fundamentally boring and unimpressive. Oh wow, you found a simple classification system and have decided to apply it to everything you could possibly think of. Good for you. That was a cute trick back in middle school, but it's lost a lot of luster in the intervening years.
When you take the time upthread to describe some (but not by any means all) of the ways to make a fumble rule NOT suck for players, and everyone carefully ignores that and yells "fumbles make everybody kill themselves and you suck if you use them!"
I find it very unlike you to take things so personally. I will not speak for others, but I did read your rules. I still do not like fumbles, but I am in no way telling you how to run your games. Nor am I implying you suck because you use fumbles.
So, what's really bothering you. :)
I find it very unlike you to take things so personally.
I usually don't, unless people reply to me specifically, which is what set me off. If certain posters (quite unlike yourself, btw) want to hate fumble rules, that's fine -- but there's no need to call me out by name in doing so. Especially when they're complaining about things that are only tangentially related to what I've been discussing.
If certain posters (unlike yourself) want to hate fumble rules, that's fine...
What?! I can't hate fumble rules! You tyrannical bastage!
Buck up, little camper. I am sure the issue taken has more to do with bad past experiences than you personally.
I am sure the issue taken has more to do with bad past experiences than you personally.
And again, I'm fine if that's the case. But if so, I should not get personally called out in their ranting.
|
|
I am generally not a fan of evil characters because most players use them as an excuse to just be a jerk.
The three most 'jerk' alignments in my experience; CE, CN and LG.
Playing with any of those is a warning sign that they are gonna derail the adventure / insult the king / cause inter-party conflict with the ridiculous behavior.
A party of LE, NE, CG and NG characters is just smooth sailing, in my experience. Usually Neutral is okay, but someone who plays 'Gygax Neutral,' which actively screws with whatever side is winning to 'maintain the balance' needs a proper defenestration.
to Kirth
Passive-aggressive 'turn it around on you' stuff like that makes me envy Darth Vader's ability to choke people with his mind. :)
I am sure the issue taken has more to do with bad past experiences than you personally.And again, I'm fine if that's the case. But if so, I should not get personally called out in their ranting.
You just posted something relevant to what I wanted to say. I could have used your post or anyone else who said something, but your sentence summed it up succinctly.
And I did say downthread that I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about my rancor.
But I still wouldn't play in your game.
STSU!Pft, noob.I still do not like fumbles, but I am in no way telling you how to run your games. Nor am I implying you suck because you use fumbles.
Sebastian! Watch your language, young man!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Loser.Sorry, Mammy.Sebastian! Watch your language, young man!STSU!Pft, noob.I still do not like fumbles, but I am in no way telling you how to run your games. Nor am I implying you suck because you use fumbles.
You're just jealous because your mother disowned you and won't acknowledge your existence. In addition to being a regular poster here on Paizo, Mammy also lets me sleep in her bed when I get nightmares.
|
You're just jealous because your mother disowned you and won't acknowledge your existence.Loser.Sorry, Mammy.Sebastian! Watch your language, young man!STSU!Pft, noob.I still do not like fumbles, but I am in no way telling you how to run your games. Nor am I implying you suck because you use fumbles.
*hangs head and cries*
You're just jealous because your mother disowned you and won't acknowledge your existence.
How does a toaster disown you?
The three most 'jerk' alignments in my experience; CE, CN and LG.
Agreed. I have had just as bad experience with the LG players.
I was rather surprised to see someone had a beef with CG characters stating they would justify their shenanigans under the 'chaotic' moniker.
I am generally not a fan of evil characters because most players use them as an excuse to just be a jerk.The three most 'jerk' alignments in my experience; CE, CN and LG.
Playing with any of those is a warning sign that they are gonna derail the adventure / insult the king / cause inter-party conflict with the ridiculous behavior.
A party of LE, NE, CG and NG characters is just smooth sailing, in my experience. Usually Neutral is okay, but someone who plays 'Gygax Neutral,' which actively screws with whatever side is winning to 'maintain the balance' needs a proper defenestration.
to Kirth
** spoiler omitted **
Well said SET. CE most of the time the charecter is insane.CN same thing to a lesser degree. LG "I'm so pure and shiney that everybody has to be like me even if they don't want to be"
LE &NE get along as long as their is an agreement about important stuff like treasue and kills and such. CG gets along with everyone if it's for the "greater" good or it's your personal freedom thing and your not hurting anyone else while you do it. NG are just pally's in training.
The only reason I love to play evil so much is for the spells the sheer power that evil can command over good is awesome. No other second levle spell does 2D20 like dance of ruin. No good spell lets you call a bunch of lemures,dretches or a nightmare to serve for a year or even have anything remotely as powerful. Look at apocolyps from the sky and try to find any spell other than wish that can even come close to that kind of damage, now imagine it widened using a rod or maximized using a diffrent rod. to sum up in my opinion Evil= more powerful spellcasters.
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?
I'm fully aware what the "freakin' rule" is. We, my group, has decided to create a house rule, because that is how we, my group, likes it. Now, if you were to come along and play with us, my group, I expect you would play by our rules, just as I'd play by your rules when in your game. To leave the table in either case would be extremely immature and somewhat rude. But each to his own I guess...
Aren't those vile spells, one of which requires the expenditure of an artefact as a material component? I think that power is entirely situational.
I hate any house rule that makes a simple rule ridiculously complicated in the name of game balance. If it's not as simple or simpler than the original rule you are trying to fix, then you need to go back to the drawing board.
|
In the games I DM it's very simple- When you roll a skill, add your modifiers to whatever you rolled. A 1 does not mean you fail, and a 20 does not mean you pass. It actually depends on the characters skill, rather than the player's luck (or ability to roll dice so that they fall a certain way).
As for fumbles/crits, a 1 is a miss while a 20 (or whatever the weapon's threat range is) is an automatic crit, no roll to confirm. It has caused several players to die because of it (Minotaur Rolling a 20, hitting with it's large Greataxe and massive strength for x3 damage) but they feel it makes combat more exciting, whereas fumbles make them look like the stooges.
I'm not really worried about the alignment of a character so much as the personality of a player. No matter what alignment someone chooses, they are playing a facet of their own personality, so that person that was a jerk when playing a neutral evil character will be a jerk when playing Neutral Good. Setting a restriction on alignment only exacerbates the problem, because they will feel like they've been wronged by not being able to have their ultimate freedom, and they will make you pay for it.
I'm fully aware what the "freakin' rule" is. We, my group, has decided to create a house rule, because that is how we, my group, likes it.
I know. I hate it, though.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've also used the 30/-10 rule. It makes exceptional successes and failures possible, without resulting in silliness like 1st lvl Helen Keller goblins noticing the approach of a 15th level shadowdancer... unless, perhaps, the shadowdancer rolls a 1 and the goblins roll a 20.
I have used a fumble rule, too, but the roll to confirm was, iirc, a DC 10 Dex check. A roll on a d6 table gave you the result. They were all pretty minor--I think the very worst was provoke AOs. The idea wasn't that the fumble was the result of your own lack of skill with your weapon, it was a random, fog-of-war kind of event. Maybe you lost your footing and stumbled or something, or a bit of blood got in your eye.
I too hate the kind of fumble rules that might result in players hitting themselves with their own weapons. That's not only unheroic, it's unbelievable. I've used several different kinds of weapons an awful lot, and I've never once injured myself.
The three most 'jerk' alignments in my experience; CE, CN and LG.
Playing with any of those is a warning sign that they are gonna derail the adventure / insult the king / cause inter-party conflict with the ridiculous behavior.
I've seen people play LG just fine, most of the time. I DESPISE people who choose CN and use that as an excuse not to bother to make up a character, but instead decide they act totally randomly. That's NOT what CN means! A CN character is one who chafes under authority but has no particular bent of cruelty or need for self-sacrifice. Firefly's Mal Reynolds (more in the movie than the series), and some of the grittier portrayals of Batman could be considered CN. Rorshach. That's kind of how it's described in the PHB. Yet people use this legacy "CN characters are insane" statement to basically derail the campaign.
I have used a fumble rule, too, but the roll to confirm was, iirc, a DC 10 Dex check. A roll on a d6 table gave you the result. They were all pretty minor--I think the very worst was provoke AOs. The idea wasn't that the fumble was the result of your own lack of skill with your weapon, it was a random, fog-of-war kind of event. Maybe you lost your footing and stumbled or something, or a bit of blood got in your eye.
I too hate the kind of fumble rules that might result in players hitting themselves with their own weapons. That's not only unheroic, it's unbelievable. I've used several different kinds of weapons an awful lot, and I've never once injured myself.
Exactly. In our game, a confirmed fumble is a dropped weapon or lesser, not even an AoO; you certainly don't hit yourself (unless it's a low-damage ranged touch spell, because we're a casters-have-it-too-good-in-the-core-rules kind of group).
I've also used the 30/-10 rule. It makes exceptional successes and failures possible, without resulting in silliness like 1st lvl Helen Keller goblins noticing the approach of a 15th level shadowdancer... unless, perhaps, the shadowdancer rolls a 1 and the goblins roll a 20.
Hi, Charlie. PLEASE don't be offended that I'm replying to your post.
I'm just going to point out that the regular SRD won't allow the HK goblins to hear the shadowdancer, either. Natural 20 on a skill roll is not an automatic success. Natural 1 is not a failure (except in special cases, as I believe UMD has special rules for it). If the goblins roll a 20 perception but have a +3 to the skill, and the shadowdancer rolls a 1 on his Stealth check but has a +25 to the roll, he sneaks by just fine. And I have 7th level players that can manage a +25 to a stealth check, so I'm sure the Shadowdancer doesn't even have to roll. And that's without the 30/-10 rule.
Meh... for years and years (since 1st ed) my rule on 1s is that your round ends right there, no dropping weapons or anything. You just lose the rest of your attacks, or your move action if you hadn't taken one yet, etc.
Its something a little extra without being overwhelming.
For house rules I dislike, I'll echo a previous poster - overcomplicating existing rules for the sake of 'realism' (as if the word has any meaning in a fantasy game).
overcomplicating existing rules for the sake of 'realism' (as if the word has any meaning in a fantasy game).
Ooo! Ooo! What is the marching order when the elf needs to tee tee?
|
|
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.
100% agreement...
My hated houserule is Massive Damage. Dumb rule.There is one card in the critical hit deck that made me hit really hard but I had to make a save or drop my weapon in my space, even though I had a locked gauntlet, and the DM on the spot ruled that because I was next to a ledge that led into water he made me roll to see if it fell into the water....of course it did. I don't like rulings like that. My critical hit ended up sucking and took me out of the fight for the next 2 rounds while I recovered my weapon....I almost shredded the card then and there....
...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.
...My hated houserule is Massive Damage. Dumb rule.
Same question, since the first one went unanswered - in what way is this houserule different from the Massive Damage core rule? Just curious.
Kang
...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....My hated houserule is Massive Damage. Dumb rule.Same question, since the first one went unanswered - in what way is this houserule different from the Massive Damage core rule? Just curious.
Kang
I have a massive damage house rule. If you get hit by an attack, and that damage is more than your current total of HP plus your Con, instant death. No save.
DM Chris is cruel but fair.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've also used the 30/-10 rule. It makes exceptional successes and failures possible, without resulting in silliness like 1st lvl Helen Keller goblins noticing the approach of a 15th level shadowdancer... unless, perhaps, the shadowdancer rolls a 1 and the goblins roll a 20.Hi, Charlie. PLEASE don't be offended that I'm replying to your post.
I'm just going to point out that the regular SRD won't allow the HK goblins to hear the shadowdancer, either. Natural 20 on a skill roll is not an automatic success. Natural 1 is not a failure (except in special cases, as I believe UMD has special rules for it). If the goblins roll a 20 perception but have a +3 to the skill, and the shadowdancer rolls a 1 on his Stealth check but has a +25 to the roll, he sneaks by just fine. And I have 7th level players that can manage a +25 to a stealth check, so I'm sure the Shadowdancer doesn't even have to roll. And that's without the 30/-10 rule.
HA! Totally not offended. Pleased, rather. I meant not that the SRD rules would allow for that kind of silliness, but that automatic success/failure houserules do. 30/-10 avoids that, but you can still get bigger successes or failures than normal... which can help create those moments of pure awesome win or those "oh crap" moments of danger that make for great games.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I have a massive damage house rule. If you get hit by an attack, and that damage is more than your current total of HP plus your Con, instant death. No save.Um ... unless your Con. < 10 this is Insta-Death per RAW anyway.
R.
Rezdave rolls a 20 on his Knowledge: Rules check, rolls a 1 on his Sense Motive to detect sarcasm. :)
|
I don't usually get to run a PC but when I do I'm almost exclusively LG (LE if it's allowed and the adventure makes sense with it).
And I've never been a problem to another Player. I think it's unfortunate that LG has gotten such a bad rep and been played so badly by so many Players over the years. My eternal, consuming hatred of Sturm Brightblade can not sufficiently be explained.
|
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.
I completely agree with you. And unfortunatly, because one or two players have ruined evil characters for the rest, I can't allow them either.
Now, I don't know your DM's reasons, and I won't speculate. But I have a player who, each and every time he played evil, turned on the players as soon as possible. And while that's fine in a novel, it got old in my games really, really quick. So I stopped allowing evil characters.
It's kinda like when you have 1 kid with nut allergies and you want to serve brownies to all the kids. You can't put nuts in the brownies because there's a chance the one kid will grab it and eat it, ruining the brownie eating experience for everyone.
/threadjack
|
|
As for houserules, anybody see any problem with mine:
1) Alignment -- if you chose to run CN, NE, LE or CE you must explain what it means. What is it about your personality that makes you NE? And then, if I give a common hypothetical in-game situation, how would you react? (If 2 PCs have opposing alignment concepts that are destructive to the group dynamic the "bad" PC has the burden to become accepted or change character concept)
Also, regardless of your alignment you can not do anything against the other PCs. Play a Thief if you want but you can't steal from PCs; be a d1ckless punk if you want but not to the other PCs.
2) I change all the stats for all the monsters. The only things sacrosanct are out-of-D&D norms, such as even non-gamers know sunlight kills vampires -- and uber traditional D&D stuff like trolls regenerate.
In case it doesn't go without being said, after you've encountered a cockatrice once and learned that it's scream makes you permanently deaf (not turned to stone), the next time you encounter one it will be the same as the first.
3) Players are encouraged to design their own 20 level-progression PC class based on Pathfinder, 3.5, Arcana Evolved or whatever. Of course you can just be a Monk, Champion, Warlock and Alchemist -- but if you want to design a different Ranger, Druid, Fighter and Green Bond, go for it.
4) I'll make minor adjustments to rules based on balance, smooth-play, etc., as the game goes on.
5) You must pay a fee of $100 per session to be in my presence and you must pray to me each morning as your god.
|
|
...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....My hated houserule is Massive Damage. Dumb rule.Same question, since the first one went unanswered - in what way is this houserule different from the Massive Damage core rule? Just curious.
Kang
The Massive Damage rule is in the core book but it is an optional rule, i.e. a houserule in that your group decides to include it in game.
If you check for the rule in the SRD it is listed under "Injury and Death" in the Unearthed Arcana section which is a listing of optional rules.
A lot of people use -CON rather than -10 for death, though
It's RAW for Pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
IOW, Rezdave made his Sense Motive check but also nailed an Intelligence Check to detect logic-flaws in the joke for which Charlie Bell failed his Perform, Sarcasm check :-P
...while failing the Int check to recall that it was Christopher Dudley's joke, not Charlie Bell's. I took a ton of ranks in Perform: Sarcasm when I was a sniveling 2nd level teenager and it was a class skill. TOUCHE!!
There ... do I get my Geek Point now?
+1 for you.
In our group rolling a 1 gives your enemy a AOO, no drop your weapon no wpn breaks, no funky table.
(However it is funny when the DM also rolls an 1 on his AOO and you get to attack back due to the sheer magnitude of fail going on.)
|
|
As for houserules, anybody see any problem with mine:
1) Alignment -- if you chose to run CN, NE, LE or CE you must explain what it means. What is it about your personality that makes you NE? And then, if I give a common hypothetical in-game situation, how would you react? (If 2 PCs have opposing alignment concepts that are destructive to the group dynamic the "bad" PC has the burden to become accepted or change character concept)
Also, regardless of your alignment you can not do anything against the other PCs. Play a Thief if you want but you can't steal from PCs; be a d1ckless punk if you want but not to the other PCs.
I've had a similar alignment houserule for a long time and it has never let me down. My rule is: Anything but the other PCs is fair game, and the PCs are fair game with their player's permission. (some of the best roleplaying I've seen is when players have agreed to their PCs being at each others' throats because it was in character)
My latest game involves an NE Assassin. She the biggest team player of the whole group. Why? Because she wants to protect her homeworld from Aberrations as much as the next PC, and doesn't have all of the moral hangups that would keep her from using the most...uh, practical...tactics available. She would never think of turning on the other PCs? Why? Because high-powered spellcasters and veteran swordsmen are too useful to her alive.
Throughout the course of the game, she actually turned the other two PCs - an NG Druid and a N Artificer - NE, and party cohesion's never been better. The other game I'm in, with LG, LN, and N party members, actually has more conflict, because the LG Cleric can't bring himself to go along with the LN and N characters' more morally questionable plans, and the nongood characters don't want to stop and help every down-on-their-luck peasant they find along the way.
I'm also not a spell point person, mostly for reasons of game balance. I'm fine with essence pools in Exalted and other, similar point systems in non-D&D games, but in d20 D&D, the Vancian spell preparation system keeps primary spellcasters from getting out of hand and completely outstripping nonspellcasters (though after last August, I no longer fear CoDzilla and the Swiss Army Wizard seems saner somehow...).
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?"
I usually declare: "this is X house rule, for Y reason. Any Objections?"