That's actually an optional rule from the original 3E Player's Handbook.Your first interpretation. Missing by 1-4 you hit the creature getting in your way. 5+ your attack went wide or bounced off armor, etc.Do you mean that if your d20 roll is 4, 3, 2, or 1 off of the target AC that you hit your friend, and if it's anything 5 or more off you just went wide all together? Or that if you miss, regardless of how badly, that you shot your friend. Cause I don't think I could get on board with that.On topic, like most DMs I have my house rules. Most are pretty benign like using a d10 for initiative instead of a d20. My groups don't bother with confirming crits. etc.
But the one that I like to use that can cause some grousing is shooting into combat. If you miss your target, because of the -4 penalty your friend imposed for being in melee with your target. You shot your friend.
(friend is just for the example. it could be any two creatures fighting. You aim for one and miss because of the -4, you hit the other guy.)
I use something similar to this day.
I had a DM in D&D 2E many years ago that had a really stupid houserule:
If you roll a critical fumble on an attack, you go ahead and roll damage, and the target is HEALED by that amount!
Unfortunately, he also wasn't fair in the application of that rule either, as the PCs didn't get that benefit when the mobs fumbled.
Guess I can put this one here. My DM reduced the exp from an encounter because we did not do what we were supposed to do. It was powerful so he expected us to run. Rather, we fought and it ran away. We got reduced exp compared to what it was worth because, as he said, we should know better than to fight someone that looks that powerful and it 30 feet tall.
I saw that one in the James Jacobs thread, silly DM.
Guess I can put this one here. My DM reduced the exp from an encounter because we did not do what we were supposed to do. It was powerful so he expected us to run. Rather, we fought and it ran away. We got reduced exp compared to what it was worth because, as he said, we should know better than to fight someone that looks that powerful and it 30 feet tall.I saw that one in the James Jacobs thread, silly DM.
Wait... So the GM had an overpowered enemy that was supposed to make the PCs run away at his mere sight, and instead of smiting six kinds of dog crap out of them, he/she made the thirty foot tall baddie run away? As if that weren't bad enough, after playing the coward and having this BBEG run away, he/she lowered the xp because the PCs didn't "defeat" the encounter the way he/she wanted them to? Shouldn't even the most compassionate of GM's in that situation drop one or two of the PCs to 0 or slightly negative hit points to teach the lesson that sometimes you should actually run? And, shouldn't any sadistic GM worth their salt smite those six kinds of dog crap out of the PCs to teach that self same lesson. I've seen parties TPK'd in less pernicious situations.
Oh he knocked my character into the negatives, but the other PCs drove it away. Apparently the creature's tactics were to retreat when it hits half hp or lower. Still though, he gave us reduced XP because he did not want us to fight it. Apparently we should have hid.
I wonder if said GM was just upset because they had taken the time to stat up a BBEG and the PCs succeeded in dropping that baddie to less than half hit points. Either way, that is definitely a crazy GM situation.
Oh he knocked my character into the negatives, but the other PCs drove it away. Apparently the creature's tactics were to retreat when it hits half hp or lower. Still though, he gave us reduced XP because he did not want us to fight it. Apparently we should have hid.
You know, I don't think this is that bad. I frequently adjust the amount of XP I give my players based on many factors. If the NPC/monster lives to fight another day, then I usually reduce the XP. I just don't give my players a breakdown of why they are getting XP. At the end of the session, I just give the players a number and do not elaborate. It works fine for my group.
Oh he knocked my character into the negatives, but the other PCs drove it away. Apparently the creature's tactics were to retreat when it hits half hp or lower. Still though, he gave us reduced XP because he did not want us to fight it. Apparently we should have hid.You know, I don't think this is that bad. I frequently adjust the amount of XP I give my players based on many factors. If the NPC/monster lives to fight another day, then I usually reduce the XP. I just don't give my players a breakdown of why they are getting XP. At the end of the session, I just give the players a number and do not elaborate. It works fine for my group.
But he didn't reduce the XP for it getting away. He reduced it for them fighting it and winning.
But a 1 is always a fail in every situation no matter how many skill ranks you have in a skill.
Actually, I can get behind this logic. If you had to roll, it means that you either couldn't succeed by taking 10 or where in a stressful/threatening situation. If you could succeed by taking 10 but decide to roll anyway (in order to chance a better result), then you also deserve the possibility of failing. Being cocky, in danger or inexperience could result in failure. Note that I have said fumbled, just failed.
You should roll Acrobatics checks every time your character moves, and fall prone on 1's. When your DM asks why, tell him you fumbled while walking and tripped.
Now you are exaggerating it.
Not every movement implies a check. When it does, it means that there is a chance of failure.
If a task is trivial enough, you can easily succeed by taking 10. When someone "raises the stakes" and chance a roll (even if success would have been automatic), he also sets himself for a potential failure. Most failure are without consequences. So you failed to tie your shoes? big deal, start next round and succeed. You have lost a whole 6 seconds. Tying your shoes is so trivial (low DC) than anyone can do it without a check. Yet raise the DC (these are very short ties!), take a penalty (your advanced stage of drunkenness gives you a -4 penalty!) or get into a stressful situation (there are 20 kindergarten kids that need shoe tying, its hot and they are really getting on your nerves!) and chances are that you might actually fail, even if you have enough skill to succeed anyhow.
So yes, I can get behind the idea that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure.
'findel
The problem with automatic success/failure on skill rolls would be the old jumping across the ocean on a twenty at first level and not knowing what a dog is at high levels.
But this is one of my pet peevs and something one of my former Dungeon Masters did.
We had included a rule in 3.0, that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check was a -10 or +10 respectively.
It's not an auto fail or succeed, there is always a chance to do worse. It was mainly due to me getting tired of the tumblers with their "Oh, tumble safely past 4 enemies, and through 1 of their squares, I don't need to roll, I automatically succeed even on a 1".
I don't like the auto success without even having to roll, sure when they get up there even the -10 isn't enough to fail, but it takes them longer to get to that point.
But he didn't reduce the XP for it getting away. He reduced it for them fighting it and winning.Oh he knocked my character into the negatives, but the other PCs drove it away. Apparently the creature's tactics were to retreat when it hits half hp or lower. Still though, he gave us reduced XP because he did not want us to fight it. Apparently we should have hid.You know, I don't think this is that bad. I frequently adjust the amount of XP I give my players based on many factors. If the NPC/monster lives to fight another day, then I usually reduce the XP. I just don't give my players a breakdown of why they are getting XP. At the end of the session, I just give the players a number and do not elaborate. It works fine for my group.
Had a DM do this a few times back in the day(3e). No matter what the actual CR of the baddie was, he adjusted the xp we earned depending on how the fight went:
If we floundered, took massive losses and barely escaped with our lives, we usually got normal xp.
If we were firing on all cylinders, working as a team and won the fight with minimum casualties, we got less experience for it. His justification was that it wasn't "challenging enough", we didn't spend as many resources as we "should have", therefore the win wasn't as fulfilling. Ya know, despite the fact that it was done through preparation, tactics, and teamwork. Essentially, we got penalized for getting into the game and using our heads. Casually running up and stabbing stuff netted more xp than careful planning a strategy.
This kind of DM'ing actually works against players working as a team. If everybody spreads out, looks out only for themselves, and takes hefty damage, we'll get more xp. Thing is, we didn't want any kind of bonus for using good teamwork, we simply wanted what the CR was worth.
The problem with automatic success/failure on skill rolls would be the old jumping across the ocean on a twenty at first level and not knowing what a dog is at high levels.
If it takes a roll to know what a dog is, then there should be a chance of failure. If the DM judges that there shouldn't be any chances of failure, then no roll should be necessary.
'findel
This kind of DM'ing actually works against players working as a team. If everybody spreads out, looks out only for themselves, and takes hefty damage, we'll get more xp. Thing is, we didn't want any kind of bonus for using good teamwork, we simply wanted what the CR was worth.
This is just one example of how experience and its progression can become a point of major contention in a game. If the manner in which xp is earned isn't clearly laid out before a campaign starts, it can really cause a rift between the players and the GM later on. This is also the reason may GMs just hand out xp/levels arbitrarily at random story arc points, or plot intersections. There are wide ranging opinions on this one, and there have been several discussions in various threads over the years about the trouble xp can cause.
Had a DM once(same guy I mentioned a few posts ago) whose campaign got a little out of hand, and all of a sudden decided he was going to play my PC's cleric cohort. I didn't object, but I pointed out several pieces of key gear I procured and different spells I had purposely chosen, keeping in theme with her alignment and domains.
I would've continued to be fine with it, had he actually remembered he was playing my cohort. Round after round would pass by and he'd literally have her stand around and do nothing while half the party was being beat to a bloody pulp. He completely ignored the spell selection I requested, as well as her gear(which I spent half my PC's starting wealth on so she'd be more effective). One game session, one of the other PC's died in battle, after he continually had her stand around doing nothing(yes, he actually said it; "she delays her turn", continuously), and I snapped. I demanded her character sheet back and told him I would be running my own cohorts from now on.
Was I out of line? Absolutely. I could have been a LOT more civil about it than I was. But after several weeks of frustration, after trying to casually talk to him about it to be meet with complete resistance, I snapped. Not one of my proudest moments, but sometimes the DM has no place running the player's cohorts/companions/familiars, etc.
Was I out of line? Absolutely. I could have been a LOT more civil about it than I was. But after several weeks of frustration, after trying to casually talk to him about it to be meet with complete resistance, I snapped. Not one of my proudest moments, but sometimes the DM has no place running the player's cohorts/companions/familiars, etc.
I'd almost pay to see that. You, of all people that I know -- to blow up publicly -- is a rare event. As long as it isn't directed toward me. :P
Round after round would pass by and he'd literally have her stand around and do nothing while half the party was being beat to a bloody pulp. He completely ignored the spell selection I requested, as well as her gear(which I spent half my PC's starting wealth on so she'd be more effective). One game session, one of the other PC's died in battle, after he continually had her stand around doing nothing(yes, he actually said it; "she delays her turn", continuously), and I snapped. I demanded her character sheet back and told him I would be running my own cohorts from now on.
As a player, one possible solution is to roleplay your character shouting out instructions to your cohort: "Attack!" "Flank with me." "Cast Hold Person on that barbarian." "Heal the mage." Etc.
That helps your DM so he doesn't have to think about tactics for both sides, and is an excellent explanation of why your cohort is doing exactly what you want her to do. If you and your cohort share an un-common language (pun intended) so much the better.
Round after round would pass by and he'd literally have her stand around and do nothing while half the party was being beat to a bloody pulp. He completely ignored the spell selection I requested, as well as her gear(which I spent half my PC's starting wealth on so she'd be more effective). One game session, one of the other PC's died in battle, after he continually had her stand around doing nothing(yes, he actually said it; "she delays her turn", continuously), and I snapped. I demanded her character sheet back and told him I would be running my own cohorts from now on.
As a player, one possible solution is to roleplay your character shouting out instructions to your cohort: "Attack!" "Flank with me." "Cast Hold Person on that barbarian." "Heal the mage." Etc.
That helps your DM so he doesn't have to think about tactics for both sides, and is an excellent explanation of why your cohort is doing exactly what you want her to do. If you and your cohort share an un-common language (pun intended) so much the better.
I do something similar in my games with cohorts and followers. It is less like having an extra character and more like Ars Magica.
Was playing an AD&D 2nd Edition game and had a Psionicist who had the Telepathy discipline and the Telepathic Science of Mindlink:
Mindlink allows the user to communicate wordlessly with any intelligent creature he can contact (Intelligence 5 or greater on a human scale). This is two-way communication. It is not the same as mind-reading because the psionicist only receives thoughts which the other party wants to send. Language is not a barrier. Distance affects the telepath's ability to make contact, but it has no other effect (see "contact").
So, the party comes upon a magic sword with signs of being an intelligent magic sword. The sword itself cannot communicate. My psionicist picks up the sword and the DM cackles with glee ... time to compute it's Ego Rating and my Personality Score to determine if the sword can extert control over my character. (DMG 2nd, p.188)
To the DM's chagrin, my psionicist has a higher Personality Score by one point, and so the sword is unable to dominate me. To find out what the sword was after, I activated my Mindlink ability to talk to the sword.
The DM tells me the sword has taken over my character. I ask how that happened; he said when my character used his Mindlink to contact the sword, the sword "gained" Telepathic Ability from the Ego table, raising it's Ego by 2 points .. 1 above my character .. so it now controlled me. (No, the sword did not suddenly become telepathic, it got to take credit for my character's now-active telepathic ability; in a contest of wills against my character.)
I argued that since the sword got 2 points from my character's telepathic ability, then as the possessor of the power, my character should get at least 2 points of his own for being telepathic. DM said nope, not part of the personality score formula for a character, no bonus for me for my own ability.
I told the DM that I would shut off my Mindlink, and so return the balance of power back to my favor. The DM informed me that the sword wouldn't allow me to shut off the Mindlink.
I sighed, checked my Psionic Strength Points, and said "Ok, I do nothing for # rounds until my PSPs are used up, then I can't maintain the power any longer. After it stops, I'll drop the sword."
The DM tells me that the sword can't bear the thought of losing its(??) telepathy, so .... (wait for it) .... it forces me to kill myself.
I told the DM that I would shut off my Mindlink, and so return the balance of power back to my favor. The DM informed me that the sword wouldn't allow me to...
That is a great story. I am curious as to why the sword thought killing you would help it keep its newfound telepathy power. I suspect there's no logic whatsoever, and your DM was just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk.
I have vague memories of the psionic book, and it sounds like something funny was going on there. I don't recall much of the intelligent magic item stuff, though, but I would say there was some metagaming going on on both sides of the screen.
Round after round would pass by and he'd literally have her stand around and do nothing while half the party was being beat to a bloody pulp. He completely ignored the spell selection I requested, as well as her gear(which I spent half my PC's starting wealth on so she'd be more effective). One game session, one of the other PC's died in battle, after he continually had her stand around doing nothing(yes, he actually said it; "she delays her turn", continuously), and I snapped. I demanded her character sheet back and told him I would be running my own cohorts from now on.
As a player, one possible solution is to roleplay your character shouting out instructions to your cohort: "Attack!" "Flank with me." "Cast Hold Person on that barbarian." "Heal the mage." Etc.
That helps your DM so he doesn't have to think about tactics for both sides, and is an excellent explanation of why your cohort is doing exactly what you want her to do. If you and your cohort share an un-common language (pun intended) so much the better.
That's a good idea, but the character I was playing at the time was a brutish melee-type, who knew nothing of magic. His cohort was the one with the book-smarts, so to speak. It would've been really meta-gamey if I had done that. That, and the fact that I hadn't thought to do that. Definitely keeping your idea in mind for the next character I roll up that has a cohort.
I do something similar in my games with cohorts and followers. It is less like having an extra character and more like Ars Magica.Round after round would pass by and he'd literally have her stand around and do nothing while half the party was being beat to a bloody pulp. He completely ignored the spell selection I requested, as well as her gear(which I spent half my PC's starting wealth on so she'd be more effective). One game session, one of the other PC's died in battle, after he continually had her stand around doing nothing(yes, he actually said it; "she delays her turn", continuously), and I snapped. I demanded her character sheet back and told him I would be running my own cohorts from now on.
As a player, one possible solution is to roleplay your character shouting out instructions to your cohort: "Attack!" "Flank with me." "Cast Hold Person on that barbarian." "Heal the mage." Etc.
That helps your DM so he doesn't have to think about tactics for both sides, and is an excellent explanation of why your cohort is doing exactly what you want her to do. If you and your cohort share an un-common language (pun intended) so much the better.
I'd be fine with it as well. I really have no compunctions about a DM who wants to run NPC's like NPC's, since that' what cohorts essentially are. But all I ask is if you(the DM) insist on running it, be ready to actually RUN it. I rolled a cleric cohort specifically because the party was short on healing, and the DM forgot to actually heal anyone.
That's a good idea, but the character I was playing at the time was a brutish melee-type, who knew nothing of magic. His cohort was the one with the book-smarts, so to speak. It would've been really meta-gamey if I had done that. That, and the fact that I hadn't thought to do that. Definitely keeping your idea in mind for the next character I roll up that has a cohort.
You don't have to know a lot about magic to be able to gruffly shout, "Heal someone! Get to work." You may not know specific spell names, but even a character with 6 intelligence should realize that a cleric has spells that take away boo-boos.
My GM just saw this board and he thinks some of these terrible rules are good ideas. I am getting scared. He especially liked the "No levitating down the stairs." one.
Most of the rules mentioned here aren't that bad in and of themselves. How they were applied tends to be where the problems arose.
We had included a rule in 3.0, that a 1 or a 20 on a skill check was a -10 or +10 respectively.
It's not an auto fail or succeed, there is always a chance to do worse. It was mainly due to me getting tired of the tumblers with their "Oh, tumble safely past 4 enemies, and through 1 of their squares, I don't need to roll, I automatically succeed even on a 1".
I don't like the auto success without even having to roll, sure when they get up there even the -10 isn't enough to fail, but it takes them longer to get to that point.
This was one of our house rules for the same reason