As I have said before, elsewhere, if these issues arise the best thing to do is to simply bow out of the game politely. Discussing the issue never seems to serve any purpose but to create unnecessary conflict. You do what you are told, or you leave.
I'm curious what you guys think about these houserules.1. Moving into a square adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA unless you are charging.
2. If a mob pushes or pulls you past another mob, that other mobs gets an OA.
3. Most heal checks are minor actions (except stabilizing the dead and some other things).
4. You can spend a minor action to make a heal check. If the check succeeds, you get a saving throw5. You can spend a minor action to make a heal check. If the check succeeds, you can use your standard action to make a saving throw.
6. An ally can use a heal check on you to grant you an immediate saving throw
4 & 5I assume you mean these to be different versions of the same rule? 4 seems too strong since the DC to grant a saving throw is only 15. 5 seems alright but I wouldn't see myself using it over taking a normal standard action.
6Unless I'm mistaken this is already in the Heal skill uses.
FINALLY, a gameplay reason why it would be ridiculous: the party melee characters would stand away from the monsters, with readied actions to attack for when the monsters ran up -> it would mean a readied attack AND an OA....all this while the ranged characters have fun and beat the other side senseless.....it would only cause both sides to stand around waiting for the other side to move up first.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote: Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
I'm curious what you guys think about these houserules.1. Moving into a square adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA unless you are charging.how?you provoke when you leave the square, not when you enter the new one....this would mean the monsters are attacking you before you're in reach of their weapon. Once you arrive in the adjacent square (and in reach), your "defenses" are back up, and you're not going to provoke....for creatures with reach, they still can't strike quickly at ranges past adjacent.creatures with threatening reach CAN hit you when you aren't adjacent, but, as the rules say, only when you LEAVE a threatened square, meaning they can reach you, and then you drop your defenses to move....they hit you right as you START to move (still in the threatened square for effects like immobilization or stopped movement).PLUS this is already able to be simulated by readied actions (they ready to hit you if you move adjacent). FINALLY, a gameplay reason why it would be ridiculous: the party melee characters would stand away from the monsters, with readied actions to attack for when the monsters ran up -> it would mean a readied attack AND an OA....all this while the ranged characters have fun and beat the other side senseless.....it would only cause both sides to stand around waiting for the other side to move up first.
My current DM won't accept anything that isn't in the DDI Character Builder yet, even if the book has been released, which means I have to wait a month before busting out any new content.
1. Moving into a square adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA unless you are charging.
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
141722973 wrote:And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
I personally don't want him decapitated.
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
58115148 wrote:I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas.
(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
I would not know if this would be so muhc a house rule or what, but I had a DM once that refused to read errata. If it was written in the books, that was it.
Well, I wanted to rant about my DM, but didn't see the spot to do it other than here... my bad.
-All poisons are automatic evil-alignment.
-Only one of each class in the party (e.g. there can't be two clerics).
I forgot the most (in)famous rule of all...-Alternate MulticlassingBob is a 5th level wizard and wishes to multiclass into fighter for hitpoints. If he is to gain a level in fighter, he can not use any class features (or spells) or benefits of the Wizard Class. Essentially, you may as well just erase 5th Level Wizard and write 0-Level Fighter.
I'm not sure what' he's trying to accomplish there. The only thing I can think of is that he is afraid of people cherry-picking multiple classes and prestige classes as in 3.x Edition. I would argue that this is a non-issue in 4th Edition. If 4th Edition is anything, it’s pretty well balanced. There shouldn’t be anything that is game-breaking, especially in multiclassing.
If you guys are playing 3.x, then I would think he would ban prestige classes as well. That is another thing I can appreciate about 4th is that instead of saying no, it is recommended to find a way to say “Yes” as often as you can!