RIDICULOUS House Rules - A Place to Vent About Your Crazy DM

312 posts / 0 new
Last post
We have a pretty elaborate dice rolling method, and it's because half the players in our campaigns like high powered characters.  It's been what we've used since 2E.  I keep arguing for point buy.

Roll 4d6 drop the lowest.  Keep rerolling until you get a 16 or better.  Then take the next five rolls of 4d6 drop the lowest.  That gives you one set.  Now repeat the above twice more.  Pick one set and that's what you use.

My last character ended up quite ridiculous:
18, 18, 17, 14, 10, 7

I might be able to talk them to using 18, 16, 14, 13, 12, 10.
Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them. -- Robertson Davies

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.

Reviews Blog: thegrumpycelt.blogspot.com/ Image Gallery: grumpy-celt.deviantart.com/gallery/ --- Right, where was I...
after reading the thread i must say i feel very lucky i have a few different dm's and they're pretty good at only adding elements to the game that wouldnt break it,   like adding an additional bonus system that was awarded instead of extra experience when someone was alone doing something

the only time i had a problem with his rules is when rolling for characters nobody was allowed allowed to have ability scores higher than 18 after racial's, which is not that bad except it makes rolling almost pointless in my eyes
o well good luck everyone
Players shouldn't be able to go from 1 hp at the end of battle and spend a bunch of healing surges to get back to full in just five minutes, it's unrealistic! Nobody heals like that! You guys only have one healing surge per day!
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 throw

5. 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
Action Points - Tips and ideas for 4e D&D DMs and players. Extended Rest - The unpublished stories of heroism.
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.



I would say bad, as that would make playing a melee character a lot harder.

2. If a mob pushes or pulls you past another mob, that other mobs gets an OA.



If players get the same opportunity, I would say this could be good tactics.

3. Most heal checks are minor actions (except stabilizing the dead and some other things).



No opinion.

4. You can spend a minor action to make a heal check.  If the check succeeds, you get a saving throw

5. 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.



Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they seem to contradict. Is the saving throw a free action or a standard?

What is the order of regular saving throw and the heal check? Do you have to make the heal check before the regular saving throw? If so, and if you fail the heal check, do you still get your regular saving throw? If you make the check, do you get to make 2 saving throws for the same thing?

6. An ally can use a heal check on you to grant you an immediate saving throw



This could negate several of Leader powers that allow allies to make saving throws.
1
Don't really like it.

2
Good if players get the same benefit

3
This could be bad considering you can use heal to allow an ally to make a saving throw or use their second wind as a free action (albeit without the +2 to defenses).

4 & 5
I 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.

6
Unless I'm mistaken this is already in the Heal skill uses.

4 & 5
I 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.



Yeah, different version of the same rule.  When we were lower level he said we could use do a heal check as a minor action to make a save against immobilize.  Yesterday he told me that, while dazed, I could use heal to grant myself a saving throw, but the saving throw would be a standard action.  Thus, since I was dazed, I couldn't do it.

6
Unless I'm mistaken this is already in the Heal skill uses.



I don't think either of us knew that, so that probably solves all the problems.
Action Points - Tips and ideas for 4e D&D DMs and players. Extended Rest - The unpublished stories of heroism.
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.

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.



Which might actually be interesting in a homebrew deuling system. Something else would have to be added, probably, to create an advantage/disadvantage scenario for being the first to close, but completing that line of thought alone might be about enough to set up an interesting dueling subsystem that doesn't take hours to teach to someone.
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.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
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.



I suppose if you want to get technical, you could say that the OA is provoked by ending movement adjacent to an enemy without shifting or charging.  I'm not fond of it because it means our Warden specifically wanted an at-will that he could use while charging and our avenger usually gives up his Oath of Emnity role becuase he doesn't want to move in and provoke.  I don't care so much because I'm ranged.
Action Points - Tips and ideas for 4e D&D DMs and players. Extended Rest - The unpublished stories of heroism.
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.
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.

I would do this voluntarily as a player!
first we get this rule from the DM of our 3.5 game

-when creating your character you may only use races from the PHB

now on the surface this dosent sound like such a horrible thing, but then the DM shows up with a aasimar (sp?) DMPC





3.5:

While running, if you enter a threatened area, you provoke an AoO, even if you enter the threatened area and don't move any more squares.
"You can't use improved disarm unless you have a free hand, and bucklers take a hand to wield."
If you make a full attack, you can only make 1 of your attacks on your turn, then wait until everyone else in the combat takes their turn in initiative order, then you can make all of your other attacks.
My DM allowed a character (ECL 10, Level Adjustment +8, 2 levels of Rogue) with no ranks in Spellcraft, or Knowledge (arcana) or (religion) or (nature), nor (the planes), to make a deal with a devil for a Wall of Stone at will item.  That ticked me off, essentially a player knowledge vs character knowledge action.
Able Learner feat is broken. (I was playing a human wizard)
Moving into a threatened area provokes an AoO if you aren't fighting defensively or taking the total defense action.
My DM has some rules that irk me, but no one else in the group seems to complain about them, so I keep it to myself.

I joined the group very late into the campaign (about level 11 or so, and I had never met most of the people). It was the DM's custom world so I decided to hold off on making a full background for my character until I got a feel for it and had a chance to ask him questions.

When I did though, it turned out I only get to decide half of my character's background (and to me, the least interesting half), anything after they turn 18. The DM rolls randomly on a chart to determine your character's social status and I think occupation or something else growing up (this part isn't TOO bad) and then comes up with the story of your character's childhood up until they become an adult. What!? He claims that you don't get to choose what happens to you as a child, so thus your character doesn't either. Again. WHAT!?

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous, and it sabotages the player's ability to create an interesting background if the most character-defining part of their life is taken away from them. Instead of my gnome cleric being driven to her faith because of some life-changing event, someone just suggested to her parents to send her to the temple because she was an average student at her school. Oh boy. Yay. So much I can do with THAT one other than make her resentful.

The DM never asked, so in my mind she didn't excel in school not because she was average, but because she was delinquent. An old priest from the temple showed her a kindness she had never known one day and she began training under him. Eventually she asked him to "suggest" to her parents that they give up their poor untalented daughter to work in the temple. It didn't entirely fit with what the DM gave me, nor was it that interesting, but whatever. It was my way of taking back the character, even if just a little.
The only reason I could see a reason the DM would have a lot to do with character backgrounds would be if it was vital to the plot of the campaign.  Even then it should be a cooperative effort.  

 


1. Moving into a square adjacent to an enemy provokes an OA unless you are charging.


This is similar to an epic Avenger feat, Halo of Warding.    The feat has some other clauses though, like the avenger has to be adjacent to OOE, doesn't trigger on shift, forced movement, or teleport.  To give something like this to everyone seems pretty harsh on the melee.

If the DM was really attached to it, could tweak it so it doesn't apply to shifts, or perhaps only when the character moved more than 3 (or whatever) spaces.
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.
These variants are from my 1e/2e DM. Yes, he would switch around.
If you roll a 1 on your attack misses and:
A) your weapon breaks
B) you fumble your weapon and can't attack next turn while you draw a backup or recover your weapon
C) Same as B, but drawing doesn't use your next attack
D) You hit yourself

If you get a 20;
A) nothing special, not even an automatic hit
B) auto hit
C) auto hit reroll for another attack if 20, keep going
D) auto hit reroll for another attack once
E) auto hit double damage

Double damage even varied from (for long sword)
(1d8+str bonus) x2
(2d8+str bonus)
(2d8+str bonusx2)

None of these are horrible, but I never new what to expect when I rolled a 1 or 20.
I started playing D&D in the 80's. I've played D&D, 1e, 2e, and 3.xe (and many other RPGs). I also played Magic since it came out (except for a few years around the change of the millennium. I say this so you know a bit of my experience, not because I care about editions.
Well.. I am a newb and have been playing for a couple weeks in two separate parties. My first DM, the group knows he is crazy, and we can overcome him easily. However, in the second party he is a PC and feels like he should be in charge of it all. He's not the leader of the party, and everytime I am ready to start my turn and determine what to do, he jumps in and starts playing my character as if I'm not there. The DM has begun to remind him to allow me to take my turn, but every chance he gets he jumps over and states, do this, do that, and I'm trying to learn to play with the party... 

Hopefully next time we play he will just let me do that, play my character. 
Thats not a house rule tariq thats just **** playing
Well, I wanted to rant about my DM, but didn't see the spot to do it other than here... my bad.
Oh not a problem, its the forums feel free to type it up. But seriously have a talk to your group about that so it doesnt happen again, its your char, not theirs.
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!



Mind if I sig this? :D


"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
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.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
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.

That would be a house rule and an arbitrary one at that.  Reminds me of the guy that didn't think Kevin Bacon was in Footloosewww.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
Well, I wanted to rant about my DM, but didn't see the spot to do it other than here... my bad.

The topic close enough!   Glad for you to have a place to talk about it and I hope things are going better!
-Necromancy is a banned school for all classes.  If the spell even comes from the necromancy school, it is not usable.  My Druid once tried to cast a spell--I discovered it was in the necromancy school--I was told it was impossible to be cast.  

-Animal Companions are chosen by the DM.  The player can mention his preference, but it is the DM's choice what animal companion he can have.  Personally--this seems unfair (and he refuses to allow the Distracting Strikes alternative class feature).

-Only one of each class in the party (e.g. there can't be two clerics). 

-All poisons are automatic evil-alignment.     


-All poisons are automatic evil-alignment.     

It is interesting that poisoning someone with a blade is evil, but gutting them with it is not, necessarily evil.


-Only one of each class in the party (e.g. there can't be two clerics). 

I've met resistance, but not outright disallowance of this.  Imo, it makes more sense RP-wise and in many cases works out better strategically.  In fact, I've had entire groups of all the same class, just with some variation and everyone worked together as a team.
I forgot the most (in)famous rule of all...

-Alternate Multiclassing

Bob 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 forgot the most (in)famous rule of all...

-Alternate Multiclassing

Bob 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!

Sign In to post comments