Worst. House Rule. Ever! The dumb house rules thread

[Libertad]

The Comic Book Guy's not amused by your 're-balanced options.'

We all talk about the problems and pitfalls of rules in D&D and other RPG systems. We cringe in horror at the poor attempts at game design in maligned third-party supplements and obscure indie RPGs, we shake our heads in dismay when people defend "realistic fighters."

But what of house rules?

House rules are often the most cringe-inducing of rules, for they can be designed by anyone, on the fly, without any need for editing or playtesting.

What horrible house rules have you uncovered/encountered in-game or from other people's accounts? Here's mine!

I don't think the 'out-of-combat time' Phone Lobster's DM used can qualify as a rule by any definition of the word, for it was insufficiently defined so that it can mean whatever the DM wants it to mean. It still deserves a spot on the list.

There's a forum called Men Go Their Own Way, dedicated to "manly stuff" like whining and moaning about how feminism ruined the world and shaking their fists in anger at fictional warrior women. Apparently the maligned "-4 Strength" house rule wasn't good enough, so a poster expanded upon this ruleset to create "realistic female characters:"

I wish it were so innocuous, but I don't think it is. I think it marks the fact that the thought police now have jurisdiction over gaming as well. The best evidence I have of this is that gender equality is NEVER explained within games, which would be necessary if it were a fantasy element. You'll find plenty of explanations of all the various fantasy races and ideas and worlds. You can read about the cultures and histories of Elves and Dwarves and Orcs and all the pantheon, but you're never going to find anything explaining why human males and females have equal ability. It's not meant to be a fantasy element, it's something they assume implicitly and carry over from real world political correctness. If we were being honest, D&D females should have the following modifiers:

STATS

-4 STR
-2 CON
-1 INT
-6 WIS
+8 CHA

SKILLS

-2 Intimidate
-4 Listen
+3 Sense Motive
-4 Survival
+10 Profession: Prostitute

Spell-like ability to cast create baby once every 9 months.

But if games were to be this honest there would be no female fantasy heroes, and gaming as an activity would be targeted for condemnation by the thought police until it was changed.

[SPOILERS (Dead Space 2)] On a side note, I was playing Dead Space 2 yesterday, and there's a part in the campaign (SPOILER) where you come across a scantily-clad female blasting hordes of necromorphs to bits as she screams taunts and obscenities at them. It was completely ridiculous. Here you are, a badass male who has fought these things before, in an armored suit, with an arsenal of weapons and you're having a tough time surviving and fighting the enemies, while a small female with a plasma cutter (game's pistol equivalent) and no armor is mowing them down without any problem, and initially considers you a liability. This could NEVER happen in real life. I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a single female in the entire world who would fight merciless mutated undead alien things instead of running away and hiding or asking some man to defend her. And this doesn't even address how she is surviving without a suit in an environment where the loss of oxygen and gravity are constant risks.

[nockermensch]

Oh man, I'm totally making a woman sorcerer now.

[Libertad]

Oh man, I'm totally making a woman sorcerer now.

I like how this guy all but overtly states that he doesn't want female PCs. But he just made female Sorcerers one of the most powerful groups of people in existence. Also, women get a net +2 modifier to Intimidate checks, making the "women are less scary than men" part of the house rule meaningless.

I think he thought "Charisma's a dump stat, and measures prettiness, so we'll get a big boost to women. Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck!" I was strongly tempted to join the board solely so that I can demonstrate how a multi-classed Divine Grace Paladin/Sorcerer with the Leadership feat would kick the asses of manly Orc Barbarians. But then I realized it would be a waste of time.

[Orion]

Man, even with a +10 to Profession checks, D&D prostitutes are seriously underpaid.

[TOZ]

Stop showing me examples of how horrible humans can be.

[fectin]

It would actually be a lot of fun to run MysogenyWorld, where those rules apply. It's like an intelligence test.

[Libertad]

Another bad house rule:

A DM got tired of melee PCs standing in place and rolling to attack. He wanted combat to be more "mobile." Understandable.

How does he fix this? By requiring that characters move their speed for all attacks, even spells. That goblin's 15 feet away? Sorry Conan, you need to move 40 feet before you can swing your sword at him!

And another:

If you roll a natural 1 on an attack, you have a chance at hitting yourself. You roll against your own AC to see if you hit. An expert swordsman has a better chance of injuring himself than a Commoner wielding a Two-Bladed Sword without proficiency or Two-Weapon Fighting.

Another house rule that's sadly common:

The mindset of all Paladins is like that of a fundamentalist Christian. He loses his powers whenever he 1.) gets sexually aroused by someone other than his spouse, 2.) gives any form of respect to the followers of another deity, even a Lawful Good one, and 3.) ever questions the actions of a superior, no matter the circumstances. Additionally, all Paladins are expected to convert as many people as possible to their religion: torture and conversion at the point of a sword are valid tactics.

Last, but not least:

All conversations must be in-character. If you must speak out of character, you must communicate entirely in hand gestures.

[Whipstitch]

I bet that guy could watch a showing of Highschool of the Dead and come away feeling emasculated.

[JonSetanta]

Critical Fumble chart for when PCs, and only PCs, roll a natural 1.

On anything.

DM checks the chart, and determines how badly you mangle yourself or the nearest ally.

[hogarth]

One I experienced: If a creature hits your AC, you can still make a Reflex save to avoid the attack.

[Guyr Adamantine]

No teleportation through anti-magic fields. It's been a year and I still can't get over it.

[Koumei]

Hogarth: many people who go to D&D from oWoD kind of expect this to be the norm. "Okay, you successfully attacked, now I should get to try to defend."

Not that it's a good idea, mind you.

All conversations must be in-character. If you must speak out of character, you must communicate entirely in hand gestures.

"I've got a hand gesture for you, Trebek!"

The least bad "lol nat 1" rules I've seen were:

1. Rifts. Natural 1 to hit means you automatically miss, now roll 1d20 + the bonus from Physical Prowess (if any), DC 15 or you also lose your next action. Given you have anywhere from 4 to 20 actions per round as a first level character, this comes up a lot but isn't too detrimental.

2. D&D. Natural 1 to hit provokes an AoO (on skills, saves etc. it is just another number like a 4, a 7 or maybe a 19). So archery and spellcasters basically ignore that rule and win forever. Actually everyone does, because it was 3.0 so everyone went around with 3/4 cover from tower shields and never provoked.

[Neurosis]

One I experienced: If a creature hits your AC, you can still make a Reflex save to avoid the attack.

I'm not saying it's good, just that it's a lot better than a lot of the other things I've seen in this thread.

[TOZ]

Here's a doozy from over on the Paizo forums.

I have always used a geometric damage chart for falling but I have been thinking that it ramped up a little to fast.

This new table is a geometric root sequence based on the Newton's motion equations. Using the free fall equations and solving for velocity it goes up by the root of the distance traveled. This chart is a reflection of damage based off the velocity that you hit at.

With this scale even a high level character is screwed at the max end of a 300' fall without magic. By my calculations a 300' drop still occurs in less than a round but any drop over 100' gives enough time for a standard action.

V = a*t
D = 1/2*a*t^2
V = (2*d/a)^.5

10' ---- 1d6 - DC15
20' ---- 3d6 - DC17
30' ---- 5d6 - DC17
40' ---- 7d6 - DC17
50' --- 10d6 - DC19
60' --- 13d6 - DC19
70' --- 16d6 - DC19
80' --- 19d6 - DC19
90' --- 22d6 - DC19
100' -- 26d6 - DC21
110' -- 30d6 - DC21
120' -- 34d6 - DC21
130' -- 38d6 - DC21
140' -- 42d6 - DC21
150' -- 46d6 - DC21
160' -- 50d6 - DC21
170' -- 55d6 - DC23
180' -- 60d6 - DC23
190' -- 65d6 - DC23
200' -- 70d6 - DC23
210' -- 75d6 - DC23
220' -- 80d6 - DC23
230' -- 85d6 - DC23
240' -- 90d6 - DC23
250' -- 95d6 - DC23
260' - 101d6 - DC25
270' - 107d6 - DC25
280' - 113d6 - DC25
290' - 119d6 - DC25
300' - 125d6 - DC25 MAX

Now if you think that is to harsh the scale I was using before hit 55d6 at 100'.

Edit: Oh, and there's always 3.5 Loyalist's lovely 'Sneak Attack only once a round' and 'spellcasters get multiple spells per round from high BAB'. But I don't know if those count since I'm not sure he isn't trolling.

[name_here]

Did he remember to use the ft/s^2 values instead of m/s^2?

Why do I even care that is unbelievably overcomplicated.

[Lokathor]

No teleportation through anti-magic fields. It's been a year and I still can't get over it.

This makes sense in some setttings, just not in the DnD one.

[Juton]

Yeah, critical fumbles were the worst houserule I say. On a natural '1' we would roll again, generally on a 1 we dropped our weapon, 2 we hit ourselves or on a 3 we hit a fellow PC.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I saw the "sneak attack once a round."

I personally got screwed by a "disjunction mysteriously lasts throughout the rest of the turn, so you can't cast your spells in it" thing.

[Prak]

"Rogues can only sneak attack if the target is unaware." So, yes, in a flank, the rogue couldn't SA unless his opponent was faced the other direction.

I left the D&D game after that.

"I can't remember what the rule for (this WoD splat I let you pick) is, so we're going to treat it like a werewolf. Same for you. You too."
So, in other words, we werea group of funny looking garou.

I left the group after that.

[fectin]

"For sneak attack to go off, you have to be behind your target and also sneaking." The transition from 2E to 3E was a little rough, and I guess that was like s combination of two rules that didn't actually work that way either.

[Roog]

Here's a doozy from over on the Paizo forums.

I have always used a geometric damage chart for falling but I have been thinking that it ramped up a little to fast.

This new table is a geometric root sequence based on the Newton's motion equations. Using the free fall equations and solving for velocity it goes up by the root of the distance traveled. This chart is a reflection of damage based off the velocity that you hit at.

With this scale even a high level character is screwed at the max end of a 300' fall without magic. By my calculations a 300' drop still occurs in less than a round but any drop over 100' gives enough time for a standard action.

V = a*t
D = 1/2*a*t^2
V = (2*d/a)^.5

10' ---- 1d6 - DC15
20' ---- 3d6 - DC17
30' ---- 5d6 - DC17
40' ---- 7d6 - DC17
50' --- 10d6 - DC19
60' --- 13d6 - DC19
70' --- 16d6 - DC19
80' --- 19d6 - DC19
90' --- 22d6 - DC19
100' -- 26d6 - DC21
110' -- 30d6 - DC21
120' -- 34d6 - DC21
130' -- 38d6 - DC21
140' -- 42d6 - DC21
150' -- 46d6 - DC21
160' -- 50d6 - DC21
170' -- 55d6 - DC23
180' -- 60d6 - DC23
190' -- 65d6 - DC23
200' -- 70d6 - DC23
210' -- 75d6 - DC23
220' -- 80d6 - DC23
230' -- 85d6 - DC23
240' -- 90d6 - DC23
250' -- 95d6 - DC23
260' - 101d6 - DC25
270' - 107d6 - DC25
280' - 113d6 - DC25
290' - 119d6 - DC25
300' - 125d6 - DC25 MAX

Now if you think that is to harsh the scale I was using before hit 55d6 at 100'.

Amusingly, he has totally stuffed up the calculation.

His numbers come close to (d/a)^(2^0.5) d6
(With distance in feet and acceleration in m/s^2)

If he actually used his own formula, then if a 10' fall caused 1d6 damage, a 300' foot fall would cause 5d6 damage.

[Neurosis]

Yeah, critical fumbles were the worst houserule I say. On a natural '1' we would roll again, generally on a 1 we dropped our weapon, 2 we hit ourselves or on a 3 we hit a fellow PC.

Just noticed that I got quoted in someone's signature on the Den. My life is now complete. XD

[Whipstitch]

Thanks to being a skill based system 4th edition Shadowrun sees a lot of misguided attempts to re-balance character creation, particularly by people who want to discourage super specialists and run a lower powered game than what you'll often see out of 400 bp chargen. The most common flavor of fail I've seen promoted over the years is when people tell you to just straight up lower the starting bp->nuyen ratio, attribute budget, skill rating AND gear availability rating caps all at once. This accomplishes 2 things:

1. People who want to play metahumans are mildly inconvenienced since you didn't really touch what makes them special.

2. Human characters take it right in the ass because they're left mostly with trap options once they cap out everything worth taking but still have a fair amount of bp to spend.

[Koumei]

I'm actually having trouble thinking of bad houserules I've encountered that didn't revolve around the rolling of a 1. I mean, every WW game I've ever played was a collection of house rules, but there are like six people on the planet who actually know what the real rules are, everyone else who claims to just thinks they're doing it totally by the books but aren't.

Mostly annoying little things - nWoD with "for a simple uncontested check, you might need 3 or 4 successes to actually succeed at all", oWoD with "I'm sick of everyone going 'Full Defence lol, now I spend all my extra actions on attacks' so now Celerity/Rage Actions/Demon Wind simply give you extra piles of dice to any split-action rolls", oWoD with "It is broken to have Celerity, Potence AND Fortitude, so I have decided it is literally impossible to have all three" etc.

Do "weird character creation rules specifically for this campaign" count as houserules? If so, "Werewolf (oWoD). Everyone make three character sheets, then I'll shuffle them all as one pile and randomly pick one for each of you. But you won't know which one, or even if it's one of yours, that of another player, or one of my own. Because you all just woke up with amnesia!" (because not knowing anything about yourself or anyone else or what you can even do (or what you ARE) encourages roleplaying!)

I've also dealt with a variant of "Sneak Attack only works once per round": it only works once per BAB-derived attack ala Designate/Rage, so your dual-khukri character with a bite attack still only gets 2 of these per round if he has +6 BAB, and even then, that's specifically "one between the first attack of each hand and the bite, and then another for the second attack of the first hand, assuming it actually hits, which it won't".

"This campaign doesn't have Force effects of any kind, they don't exist. Also there are no [Cold] effects because it's set in a desert. No Prismatic either. And none of the Named-Inventor spells exists (Mordenkainen's ___ and the like), because it's a different setting, and it doesn't just have Some-Guy-Who-Was-Effectively-Bigby." was kind of annoying.

But nothing that's particularly shitted me, just "a bunch of things which are a bit of a pain". Usually my Yes/No to a game depends on the core concept in the first place, rather than some house rules, as I've yet to run into an MC who has particularly many/bad ones.

[Maxus]

Most of mine are That DM I Keep Bringing Up, and his spur-of-the-moment rules to fuck up specific characters.

And his general houserules in favor of his DM PCs. Like that once class, the Dancer, which could 'emulate' any spell with a Perform (Dance) check, near as I could tell.

Other than that and some DMs persisting in Fumble rules (fumble an attack on a grappling enemy? The cartoon cloud of dust and fists and stuff rolls over and engulfs you, too).