what is the worse houserule your DM has implemented to "fix" a problem

172 posts / 0 new
Last post
What is worse the worse houserule your DM has used to *fix* a problem.  I am talking about those houserules to change a balanced part of the game because it breaks the realm of realism or thinks something is broken. 

For example if your DM made twinstrike a 2(w) damage effect both hits happen because he thinks getting your weapon bonus twice is broken( i heard this one somewhere on the forum and it made me go What!?
For example if your DM made twinstrike a 2(w) damage effect both hits happen because he thinks getting your weapon bonus twice is broken( i heard this one somewhere on the forum and it made me go What!?


I'm not sure I understand what change has been made.  Both attacks now do 2[W] instead of 1[W]?  That sounds like a big upgrade to me.  Or you mean you make two attack roll against one target, and if both hit, you treat it as a single 2[W] attack?  If so, yeah, that's a terrible idea.
If you make it "one hit, 1[w] damage, two hits, 2[w] damage" then it sounds like a pretty good fix to me.

Other then that; I don't know. I don't have a lot of things to fix since I don't have any players trying to break the system  
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I haven't had players try to bust the system in a few years.
If you make it "one hit, 1[w] damage, two hits, 2[w] damage" then it sounds like a pretty good fix to me.

Other then that; I don't know. I don't have a lot of things to fix since I don't have any players trying to break the system  



it's a pretty bad fix.  The person who did this was trying to fix a problem that isn't there.

Thats kinda of what I am looking for.  A DM trying to fix something that is already balanced
If you make it "one hit, 1[w] damage, two hits, 2[w] damage" then it sounds like a pretty good fix to me.

Other then that; I don't know. I don't have a lot of things to fix since I don't have any players trying to break the system  



it's a pretty bad fix.  The person who did this was trying to fix a problem that isn't there.

Thats kinda of what I am looking for.  A DM trying to fix something that is already balanced

Balanced, because it's in the rulebook?   Balanced because you don't have a problem with it?  Balanced because the CO  boards say it is?

Balanced means different things to different people.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Balanced means different things to different people.

Only because some people are correct and others are mistaken. The math in 4th edition, especially for your basic striker at-will powers, is pretty damn tight. The question of whether or not a given at-will is balanced usually has a right and a wrong answer.
Back in 3e.

"rogues do too much damage with sneak attack! I'm halfing the progression so it makes more sense!"

While totally ignoring the other numerous problems that edition had. Oh and he made it so that it was harder to get the sneak attack damage bonus too.
http://guild.medialoungeca.com/index.php?action=forum The Guild I'm apart of. We're in WOW, STO, Rift and soon Star Wars feel free to register and hang out. http://sparkster11.deviantart.com/ my deviantart Wheelman of the House of Trolls, "I love it when you watch" Carrier of Section 2, 3 and 6 cargo. Resident Driver Stud God of Transportation and Lust.
Also back in 3e:

"You can't crit with eldritch blast."

"Yes you can.  It says so, on this page."

"That page isn't in the PHB, so it doesn't count."

"Then why are you letting me play a bloody warlock in the first place?  That's not in the PHB either."

Oh, and this was still when we were playing with the rule that entering a threatened square provoked opportunity attacks rather than leaving one...
Critical failures (roll a 1 and you shoot yourself in the foot/drop your weapon/accidentally hit an ally/fall down) are probably not an uncommon houserule.  But I've been given a justification of it existing to "balance crits."
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
If you make it "one hit, 1[w] damage, two hits, 2[w] damage" then it sounds like a pretty good fix to me.

Other then that; I don't know. I don't have a lot of things to fix since I don't have any players trying to break the system  



it's a pretty bad fix.  The person who did this was trying to fix a problem that isn't there.

Thats kinda of what I am looking for.  A DM trying to fix something that is already balanced

Balanced, because it's in the rulebook?   Balanced because you don't have a problem with it?  Balanced because the CO  boards say it is?

Balanced means different things to different people.




you really overthinking this. 

Critical failures (roll a 1 and you shoot yourself in the foot/drop your weapon/accidentally hit an ally/fall down) are probably not an uncommon houserule.  But I've been given a justification of it existing to "balance crits."



I gotta say, I don't mind critical failures as long as they make sense. For example, I rolled a 1 when using Hold Foe (clerical daily) and the Dm ruledthat my SPELL hit an ally instead. Which kind of bothered me. I told the DM I think if anyone should suffer for my fubar, it should be my cleric. But his ruling stood strong.

The real problem came when I would roll a 20 and the critical success wasn't nearly as good or when the monster rolled a critical failure and hardly anything happened. I started to get a little bent, but quickly remembered its just a game.

Plus this dude just started as a DM. Brand new. So I'm asking the group to cut him some slack, as long as the DM (a very good friend) listens to us, the players and especially me, the most experienced D&Der in the group. He's already shown signs of improvement, so I'm happy about that. Given a few months and I'm sure he will get a better handle on running games.




As for the most jacked up houserule I'v ever been subjected to? Long ago, only allowed to carry three weapons. I don't know why the DM did this, but it completely screwed the ranged characters, since rangers, rogues and the lot could only have 2 arrows and a bow or 2 bolts and a crossbow.
That guy didn't last long as a DM, since he was unwilling to listen to reason.

Long Live Dragonlance and the Nexus! I still want an athasian nightmare beast and a warforged dragon mini! "Look, Meat, I'll tear your face off, rip your throat out and eat what's left-because that's what I do to food like you." ~Thrikreen Intimidation Tactic.
My Custom 4th edition Content (New Content:0)
* My Personal 4e Darksun Material found below: Currently updating.
I've played in several campaigns that went out of their way to nerf twin strike. I didn't think it was that bad of a move--a Ranger without twin strike can still be a perfectly viable striker, he just can't be the be-all and end-all of damage by spamming a single at-will. Take away twin strike, and Ranger play tends to become much more varied, because you no longer have one power that is pretty much always the best choice.

Twin-strike has generally been considered to be overpowered from the start of 4e. It starts off better than any ranger at-will, and then just gets crazier.


I will repeat the dislike for 'critical misses' as well.

I don't mind critical misses if they have a relatively minor, codified effect--the DMG suggestion that a natural 1 means you grant combat advantage until the start of your next turn seems about right to me. Yes, I'm aware that critical misses invariably screw PCs worse than monsters because PCs will make so many more rolls and are trying not to die, whereas monsters only appear once and are supposed to die. But granting CA for a round is not that horrible, and besides, i generally feel that the odds are pretty well stacked in the PCs favor to begin with.

My problem with critical misses is that most DMs who use them seem to see them as carte blanche to screw characters in whatever way seems funniest at the time, often in ways that are horribly imbalanced--a fighter critical misses, for example, and the DM might rule that he's accidentally thrown his sword 8 squares away, which effectively renders him useless for multiple rounds of combat. Or a ranger fires into combat, critical misses, and the DM rules that he twin strikes another party member instead--ignoring the fact that striker damage is built around monster hp, and when applied to characters will result in character death almost instantly.

I'm fine with a rule that says, "rolling a 1 is worse than an ordinary miss". I'm not fine with a rule that says< "rolling a 1 means the DM can horribly screw you according to his whims."
I use a critical failure rule with a natural 1, but it isn't a serious negative to the player. When a player (or an enemy) they grant combat advantage until the start of their next turn. It provides just enough drama in encounters and can give an advantage to me or the players if rolls are unlucky.
I have one DM I play under, if I'm playing a rogue I can never use stealth in combat, barring an invisibility spell.   It usually goes like this:

Me: I duck behind the wall, getting Superior Cover. (shows the blocked lines needed for SC)  And at the end of the move action I make a stealth check.
DM: No you don't, just because they can't see you doesn't mean they forget you're there.  You won't get any advantage out of stealthing.
Me: Why do I ever play any characters that use stealth?

(He applies the same logic to Obfuscate in our Vampire: the Requiem games.  If you aren't obfuscated at the beginning of combat, it's useless.)

I should also point out that my group tends towards breaking off for several minifights instead of focus fire.  This means if I try to set up flanking, the other party member breaks off to fight something else.  That combined with the "No stealth EVAR" rule means I have to work a lot harder to get CA. 
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
Show
69889855 wrote:
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
58321818 wrote:
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do. Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
57025236 wrote:
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
seems like the most overused houserule is critical fails. 

Scipio I'm sorry your DM is such a dink when it comes to stealth.  If he uses that logic again try" He won't forget I am there, but he may not be able to find me"

It would be like saying
PC:I go around the corner and hide down in the sewer. 
Dm:Well you can't do that because he knows you went there.
PC: Yeah but he doesn't know where I am there
seems like the most overused houserule is critical fails. 

Scipio I'm sorry your DM is such a dink when it comes to stealth.  If he uses that logic again try" He won't forget I am there, but he may not be able to find me"

It would be like saying
PC:I go around the corner and hide down in the sewer. 
Dm:Well you can't do that because he knows you went there.
PC: Yeah but he doesn't know where I am there


Yeah, usually it leads to a 10 minute argument ending with the rest of the group agreeing with me that the enemy doesn't know exactly where I am, or when I'm gonna pop out to hit him, thus making it impossible for him to defend properly and giving me CA.  That resolves the issue (in my favor and following RAW) at least until the next time I try it.
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
Show
69889855 wrote:
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
58321818 wrote:
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do. Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
57025236 wrote:
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
I've had a LOT of DMs who houserule powers to not work unless they "make sense", e.g. come and get it doesn't work on, say, skeletons or a gelatinous cube. This generally has the effect of screwing martial characters, since other power sources can just handwave it as being magic.
Yeah, usually it leads to a 10 minute argument ending with the rest of the group agreeing with me that the enemy doesn't know exactly where I am, or when I'm gonna pop out to hit him, thus making it impossible for him to defend properly and giving me CA.  That resolves the issue (in my favor and following RAW) at least until the next time I try it.



Maybe you should start every session with trying to hide? Or outright asking your DM "Could we have the argument now instead of in the middle of a fight?".

Maybe that will - after two or three tries - take care of the problem forever. One can hope, right?



I just wouldn't play stealthy characters at that point.  If something gets nerfed into total uselessness, just don't bother.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yeah, usually it leads to a 10 minute argument ending with the rest of the group agreeing with me that the enemy doesn't know exactly where I am, or when I'm gonna pop out to hit him, thus making it impossible for him to defend properly and giving me CA.  That resolves the issue (in my favor and following RAW) at least until the next time I try it.



Maybe you should start every session with trying to hide? Or outright asking your DM "Could we have the argument now instead of in the middle of a fight?".

Or find a bunch of movies where exactly what you are trying to do happens. have a movie night and watch them.

Then explain to the DM that there is a difference between knowing that someone is at a certain locatrion, and keeping track of the movements of everyone in the fight.

Though I can see one justification for his argument, the rules assume that you need to be keeping track of the whole fight, but if it is just splintering off into multiple mini-fights, the monster can focus his attention on you. Heck the running behind a "wall" only really works when there is some reason the opponent can not just follow you. as he still knows your general direction and only needs to move to somewhere where you don't have cover, which can be pretty easy.

I've had a LOT of DMs who houserule powers to not work unless they "make sense", e.g. come and get it doesn't work on, say, skeletons or a gelatinous cube. This generally has the effect of screwing martial characters, since other power sources can just handwave it as being magic.



Well, to somewhat balance that out, DMs like this tend to screw with magic as well in other ways... antimagic zones, wild magic, legions of seemingly omniscient mage-hunters in a city with "no magic allowed" laws...
Twin-strike has generally been considered to be overpowered from the start of 4e. It starts off better than any ranger at-will, and then just gets crazier.


Many DMS I've played with make the user of Twin Strike declare his targets before making Attack Rolls. While this has no effect on single-target DPR, it certainly helps reduce the feeling of the Ranger just getting 2 or 3 Standard Actions every single turn because he can drop a guy, turn, drop a guy, turn, drop a guy, etc, etc...
Resident Logic Cannon
Many DMS I've played with make the user of Twin Strike declare his targets before making Attack Rolls.


I thought it worked like that anyway. Well guess I need ot go read the combat chapter again.

Crit misses I; 
Or at least the way my one DM does them.  She has a 100 item long list.  You rolled a 1?  Great now roll the % dice & see what happens.
This list has ALL KINDS of bizzarre stuff on it.  Everything from you granting CA next turn, striking allies instead of foes, injuring (maiming) yourself/breaking items, to what can only be described as reality altering mishaps (as in your non-magical sword rips a gash in reality & d6 ochre jellies spew out & attack everyone/everything).
There is no comprable crit hit chart.

Crit hits/misses II;
Another DM employs this crit hit/miss deck some company produced awhile back.  The misses are just annoying for the most part.  But the hits?  They A) almost always nerf the damage a normal crit would have done, B) are tedious & annoying to keep track of effect wise.
I had this problem all throughout 3.5, mostly because the system was so busted that it needed fixing and the fixes were never pretty.

My biggest pet peeve was DMs banning something due to "balance issues". The DM would ban Expanded Psionics Handbook and Tome of Battle because they are "too good", but if you wanted to play a Druid, Cleric or Wizard you were A-OK without having to argue with the DM, even though Clerics, Druids and (to a lesser extent) Wizards are way better than anything in either of those two books.
I had this problem all throughout 3.5, mostly because the system was so busted that it needed fixing and the fixes were never pretty.

My biggest pet peeve was DMs banning something due to "balance issues". The DM would ban Expanded Psionics Handbook and Tome of Battle because they are "too good", but if you wanted to play a Druid, Cleric or Wizard you were A-OK without having to argue with the DM, even though Clerics, Druids and (to a lesser extent) Wizards are way better than anything in either of those two books.



QFT.

Every time I saw someone ban either of those books, it was because they didn't properly understand the rules, such as the metapsionic cap (you can't spend more PP on a power than your manifester level).
"But you can just drop all hundred power points and do 100d10 damage!"
"No, I can't."
" ... really?"
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
To be fair, a lot about Psionics that was broken (read: what people who understood the rules thought was too good) came from the Astral Construct rules, and the fact that due to the nature of Power Points, the Psion would expend only as much as he needed in a given situation, meaning that although his spells weren't as potent as a Wizard's, they were generally just potent enough, which meant that he had more Points to play with, which meant he coud manifest more powers than Joe Wizard could cast spells.
To be fair, a lot about Psionics that was broken (read: what people who understood the rules thought was too good) came from the Astral Construct rules, and the fact that due to the nature of Power Points, the Psion would expend only as much as he needed in a given situation, meaning that although his spells weren't as potent as a Wizard's, they were generally just potent enough, which meant that he had more Points to play with, which meant he coud manifest more powers than Joe Wizard could cast spells.

I don't think that this is accurate at all. Almost everything broken that you could do with Psionics, you could do better with Arcane or Divine. Yeah, Psionics had a bit more versatility that came with power points as opposed to vancian casting, but they gave up quite a bit of power to be able to do so, and in the end, they were still less powerful than your standard CoDzilla. Even the whole idea of the Psionic nova is a myth, as Arcane and Divine characters can also nova and can nova better.

I'll echo that critical miss rules are almost universally a terrible idea. At this point, I feel confidant in saying that I can immediately judge as DM as bad if he has special critical miss rules to **** me over with. The same goes for DMs who ban X for being overpowered while not complaining one bit about CoDzilla. You can tell that DMs that do that have no idea what they're doing. I do try to reason with them and explain to them exactly why they're wrong, but when that fails, I usually decide not to play in the game, and then I hear about the game falling apart two or three sessions later...

I haven't played under any 4E DMs who house-ruled to any significant extent at all, though, at least not to any extent that was bad.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Many DMS I've played with make the user of Twin Strike declare his targets before making Attack Rolls.


I thought it worked like that anyway. Well guess I need ot go read the combat chapter again.




I can't back you up 100% but I can say 90% sure it works like that.  You do have to declear both attacks at the same time
I don't want to get into another Psionics vs Magic debate, but I have memories (not necessarily fond ones) of DMing for a Psion who could just phase through any wall I threw at him, while still having plenty of power points to blast whatever was behind said walls. I had to start throwing in random Anti-Magic Cirlces just to stop him from doing this all the damn time, and he got angry at me for hosing his character (and, to be fair, I was). Was it broken? Probably not. Annoying to DM? Most definitely.
Many DMS I've played with make the user of Twin Strike declare his targets before making Attack Rolls.


I thought it worked like that anyway. Well guess I need ot go read the combat chapter again.


It does work this way, strictly, but it never talks about what happens if your target disappears or stops being valid in the middle of an attack (because it dies or disappears or you lose line of sight or line of effect or is revealed as illusory or otherwise invulnerable).  The rules are not as tight as those for Magic.  Nor should they be.  D&D doesn't need to be that anal.  It's up to the DM to decide if the player can chose a new target.

Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them. -- Robertson Davies

The most frustrating 4e DM I played with actually barely houseruled at all, and would pretty much let players build the character they wanted. However, once the game started, he would specifically design each encounter so that the party was horribly equipped to handle it. Like, if the party had lot of single target strikers, but had no AOE whatsoever, then he would just use TONS of minions, so that the rangers would just end up completely overrun. Or if the party was built to synergize around one elements (for example, cold), then a ridiculously high percentage of the enemies we faced would have resistance or immunity to that element. If you had divine characters with lots of radiant, then you'd NEVER see an undead. If you liked forced movement, then have fun fighting Dwarves all the time.

It was incredibly frustrating, because whenever you chose what you thought would be a cool power, the DM would go out of his way to design an encounter that would render that power ineffective. Builds and optimization became all but meaningless.

The worst part was that the DM seemed to think this was what he was supposed to do. If players could do something cool or effective, than that was "broken", and the fix was to build encounters to make them ineffective.

I don't want to get into another Psionics vs Magic debate, but I have memories (not necessarily fond ones) of DMing for a Psion who could just phase through any wall I threw at him, while still having plenty of power points to blast whatever was behind said walls. I had to start throwing in random Anti-Magic Cirlces just to stop him from doing this all the damn time, and he got angry at me for hosing his character (and, to be fair, I was). Was it broken? Probably not. Annoying to DM? Most definitely.

I don't disagree at all. All that I'm saying is that I have a Sorcerer who can do the exact same thing just as well if not better. And that's a Sorcerer, not even a Wizard. Really, this illustrates the issue that a lot of people have with Psionics. They don't realize that Arcane and Divine characters could already do that and can still do it better.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
"Better" is a relative term. In my experience, Psionic classes (Psions, Erudites, and to a lesser extent Ardents and Wilders) were like Sorcerers on cocaine. They weren't as potent, but they could cast those key spells (powers, whatever) far more often, and do it while wearing heavy armor.

EDIT: A player who recently left our playgroup for non-game-related reasons (RIP Conrad, Human Wizard. You will be missed) took Unseen Mage as his Paragon Path. To rattle his cage, I set him against a monster with Truesight. After the game, he approached me and said something to the effect of "Yeah, that's a neat trick to pull once in a while, but please don't make a habit of it". And he was right.

Specifically building encounters to counter PC tactics or classes is nice to shake things up once in a while, as it keeps players on their toes. But it should never be a central tenant to one's encounter-building strategy.
As for critical misses, I'm of the opinion that the possiblity of good luck should come with the possiblity of bad luck. But with that said, most critical miss versions I've seen are just rather silly.

In my 3.5 game we use a critcal miss house rule that is modified from the best critical miss suggestion I've ever seen(It was on these forums before the switch). We've tried to make it close to the opposite of a critical hit.

Critical Miss

On a natural 1, roll to confirm against opponent's AC. If you beat the opponent's AC, it's a regular miss. If you fail to beat the opponent's AC, it's a critical miss. On a critical miss, you take a penalty to AC equal to the critical multipler of the weapon used to make the attack, for the next X attacks(where X is the AC penalty) or until the beginning of your next turn, Whichever comes first.

Example:

If someone were to get a critical miss using a Longsword, they would get a -2 penalty to their AC against the next two attacks or until the beginning of their next turn, whichever comes first.

For Ranged:

Same penalty, but to X of your next attacks.
I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri rock! I need scissors! 61! " 'Giving up' kills people. When a person refuses to give up, he earns the right to walk down the road of humanity." - Alucard


I just wouldn't play stealthy characters at that point.  If something gets nerfed into total uselessness, just don't bother.


That's exactly the route I've taken.   No more rogues in 4e, and in Vampire, no more Mekhet or Nosferatu.  Instead I go for builds that really are every bit as broken as he accuses the stealth thing of being.
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
Show
69889855 wrote:
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
58321818 wrote:
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do. Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
57025236 wrote:
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)
As for critical misses, I'm of the opinion that the possiblity of good luck should come with the possiblity of bad luck.

Isn't that already handled by enemies being able to crit?

Having extra effects on a 1 isn't so much "the possibility of bad luck" as "the possibility of buffoonery."  The contest to player luck is enemy luck.  When you start contesting player luck with player misfortune, it often turns into mockery.
The Bruce Campbell of D&D.
I despise critical miss rules. An automatic miss is already a critical miss, especially on a daily or encounter power. The worst house rule I ever played under, though, which probably isn't bad compared to others, was the DM required you to use movement to change direction. Basically 1 move to "turn".
Critical fumble rules are a riot provided they're not overused (not too powerful, not necessarily even on every roll of 1) - and don't just apply to the PCs! PCs appreciate critical fumbles much more after the half-ogre trips himself with his chain, the death knight accidentally pitches his ancestral sword across the room, or the stirge gets its beak stuck in a waterskin.

I enjoy games with a comic element, and critical fumbles help introduce laughter into the game. This is about fun, not tactical miniatures play!
The notorious tjhairball of legend and lore.
Sign In to post comments