|
2 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2011 - 10:59AM
#1291
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2009
|
The 'Dim Lighting" rule seems like extremely fertile ground for a Houserule to me! Sorry, WotC, I just can't see characters plunging from bright light into total darkness by moving one square. Anyway, whatever happened to Gygax's old rule that the DM was the final arbiter of everything that happened in his game? Seems like now DMs have to refer questions up the chain of command, possibly all the way up to Mearls, for a definitive answer. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something. Or maybe I'm just a cranky old grognard.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2011 - 11:49AM
#1292
|
|
|
The 'Dim Lighting" rule seems like extremely fertile ground for a Houserule to me! Sorry, WotC, I just can't see characters plunging from bright light into total darkness by moving one square.
It's simpler and faster, which are generally plusses.
Anyway, whatever happened to Gygax's old rule that the DM was the final arbiter of everything that happened in his game?
First: Uh, did you ever actually READ any of Gygax's articles, like, say, the ones for Dragon where he said over and over again that you HAD to do things his way?
Gary Gygax's rule was that *Gary Gygax* was the final arbiter of everything that happened in the game.
Second: The GM can change whatever he wants, sure. And it's even actually printed in the book now, unlike the old-school "you can't change this or you will RUIN IT" bits and the passive-aggressive D20 "You could change it but you would probably just screw it up so you shouldn't" sidebars.
But....
Seems like now DMs have to refer questions up the chain of command, possibly all the way up to Mearls, for a definitive answer. Maybe I'm misinterpreting something. Or maybe I'm just a cranky old grognard.
.... knowing what the rules *are supposed to be* before changing them is valuable. Illuminating, even, sometimes. And being clear on what are the rules of the game and which are House Rules is handy when you swap GMs, or join a new group, or go play LFR or Encounters where house rules are actually banned.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2011 - 11:52AM
#1293
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Feel free to change any Rules you want. As a DM you can with your players discuss certain Rule elements and change them. Its YOUR game.
I have a houserule that for every 10 squares of Bright Light, 1 square of Dim Light extend from the light source exactly to avoid sudden drop of lighting and to create more Dim Light (and Concealment) It require minimal investment and trakcking and pleases my players....
Ex. A Torch gives off light in 6 squares (5 Bright, 1 Dim)
And a Sunrod gives off light in 22 squares (20 Bright, 2 Dim)
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 05, 2011 - 1:31PM
#1294
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2009
|
It's simpler and faster, which are generally plusses.
First: Uh, did you ever actually READ any of Gygax's articles, like, say, the ones for Dragon where he said over and over again that you HAD to do things his way?
I read as far as "The DM is the final arbiter in his games," and stopped! :-) I figured everything after that was kinda irrelevant.
Gary Gygax's rule was that *Gary Gygax* was the final arbiter of everything that happened in the game.
True, true.
Second: The GM can change whatever he wants, sure. And it's even actually printed in the book now, unlike the old-school "you can't change this or you will RUIN IT" bits and the passive-aggressive D20 "You could change it but you would probably just screw it up so you shouldn't" sidebars.
But knowing what the rules *are supposed to be* before changing them is valuable. Illuminating, even, sometimes. And being clear on what are the rules of the game and which are House Rules is handy when you swap GMs, or join a new group, or go play LFR or Encounters where house rules are actually banned.
Irrefutably correct, sir! ;-)
I have a houserule that for every 10 squares of Bright Light, 1 square of Dim Light extend from the light source exactly to avoid sudden drop of lighting and to create more Dim Light (and Concealment) It require minimal investment and trakcking and pleases my players....
Ex. A Torch gives off light in 6 squares (5 Bright, 1 Dim)
And a Sunrod gives off light in 22 squares (20 Bright, 2 Dim)
Sounds like an excellent idea! Mind if I steal it? :-)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2011 - 8:12AM
#1295
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2005
|
QUEST XP : Give out to each player that amount of Divide it among the number of players? I Beleve each player but one buddie thinks its Divided to each person.
You're correct, quest xp is given to each PC not divided.
OMFG!!!! You're right!!  I owe my players beaucoup XP! At first I thought you were wrong, and went to look it up. In so doing, I found you to be absolutely correct!! Page 122 of the DMG says so: "When a group of characters completes a 10th-level major quest, each individual in the group gets 500 XP, regardless of how many characters are in the group." Looks like we all have things that we can learn from each other! TBP
Sorry if this was already clarified before but the past few pages of me reading this has bothered me.
Actually it is split, per page 122 DMG "When characters finish a major quest that they've been pursuing for several sessions, divide the XP reward among all the characters that participated."
You just increase the quest reward based on the number of characters because a major quest is equal to a full encounter. I know it's picking nits, but the point stands. Someone could read what you said and assume that 4 10th level characters get 2000XP each instead of 500 each.
Perhaps an easier way to think about it is a Major quest reward is a Minor quest reward for each player, and a minor quest reward is a minor quest reward split among the players.
Or as it states also on the same page, a Major quest is an entire encounter's worth of XP, a minor is a monster's worth of XP.
Heck even the chart has entries for 4,5, and 6 pc quest values.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2011 - 10:53AM
#1296
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.
In a game now in which a player and the DM weren't sure if you could move a target less than the amount of forced movement given by a power. The DM ruled correctly, but wasn't sure if it was a houserule or not.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2011 - 3:52PM
#1297
|
|
|
Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.
Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2011 - 3:57PM
#1298
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.
Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).
I'm not sure of his background, but the reason he didn't believe it worked that way is that it allows the Knight and the Cavalier to damage multiple creatures in a round. He thought this was excessive and that I was misinterpreting the rule.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 14, 2011 - 6:21PM
#1299
|
|
|
Recently encountered someone who didn't know that you get an opportunity attack once per every creature's turn.
Understandable if they have a 3.x background -- you used to have to feat for the ability to take multiple AoO's (as the lingo of the day went).
I'm not sure of his background, but the reason he didn't believe it worked that way is that it allows the Knight and the Cavalier to damage multiple creatures in a round. He thought this was excessive and that I was misinterpreting the rule.
Being able to enforce their marks more than once a round does make them very good at their jobs... Knights (and I guess cavaliers, though I've never seen one in action) can be sticky as hell.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 30, 2011 - 5:49PM
#1300
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2010
|
A rule I have been playing wrongly since DAY ONE of Fourth Edition, which was only caught and corrected for me this past week:
Flanking grants combat advantage only to the attackers who are doing the flanking, not (as I thought) to anyone attacking the flanked individual with a melee attack. For example:
A
D B C
In the above situation, only D and C have combat advantage against B. Player A does not!
(For reference, PHB Page 285)
/mind blown. Seriously. Was it this way in previous editions? I have no idea where I got the wrong idea!
|
|
|
