House rules that make you rage?

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:47 pm

This is where you all get up and commence the Folding Chair conga.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:44 pm

I have a semi fumble rule, but it only happens if the PCs are trying something dangerous, like firing into a melee or fighting on the edge of a cliff.

There are no generic critical fumbles in standard combats. It's only if you try something risky.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:33 pm

I would have, Roy, except he was campus staff and the only reason we could use the classroom for the game.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:24 am

I don't mind critical fumbles if (1) they're applied to everyone, monsters included, and (2) the effects are minor (as the Wizard suggested, something like -2 for a round). Actually, I kinda like fumbles...but I can understand why some players hate them.

My default rule for when a player rolls absolute crap is "You fail and look silly doing it." Flavorful, but not mechanically painful.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:02 am

I rule something similar. If you roll a 1, you do something embarrassing but there's no penalty past failure, assuming you do fail.

Like rolling a 1 for diplomacy means you break wind in the middle of your speech.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:40 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I have a semi fumble rule, but it only happens if the PCs are trying something dangerous, like firing into a melee or fighting on the edge of a cliff.

There are no generic critical fumbles in standard combats. It's only if you try something risky.

The only problem with that is if risky things are the only things which cause the dice to blow up in their face, the players will avoid doing risky things

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:04 am

I'm not big on specifically 1s doing much of anything, because 1s happen proportionately to how often you roll dice. Therefore it punishes action. I mean crap, a Giant squid gets more than a single one every round on average once you take into account the fact that his attack routine is broken up into 11 attacks and 10 improved grab rolls. They really can't be doing something embarrassing every time they roll a 1 or it won't even be embarrassing or unique any more - it would literally be every damn round.

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:29 am

Not to mention that even if the fumble is basically harmless, but still goes beyond a mere auto miss, it demonstrates incompetence. Therefore, you become more incompetent with level, as it happens more often. Do beatsticks really need to be thought of as useless anymore than they already are?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:22 pm

I've been with the "1's aren't special fial" rule for a long time.

Fighters shouldn't be botching more often per minute the more levels they have.

Likewise, in systems like WoD, the bigger your dice pool, the less likely you should be automatically failing.

Basically, the rules should reflect what sort of actions you want to see.

A comedy where the expart fightar has a flurry of misses is fine, but only if people know that this is the expected course of action.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:03 pm

I'd be a fan of fumbles on a combination of "roll a 1 AND miss your target by 10+"," or something similar.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:37 pm

I only hate house rules that the DM won't address as such.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:24 am

Roy wrote:Not to mention that even if the fumble is basically harmless, but still goes beyond a mere auto miss, it demonstrates incompetence. Therefore, you become more incompetent with level, as it happens more often. Do beatsticks really need to be thought of as useless anymore than they already are?

I definitely agree. If your character is a brooding anti-hero who has trained for years with his sword and is renowned for his skill, then tripping and almost falling every 10 seconds or so makes him just an idiot.

And if you are fighting in front of an audience then you definitely don't want to look bad.

I just remembered the house rule one DM played that a natural 1 meant your weapon flew off into the distance. Or, if you had a bow the string would snap.

It would end up with the DM smirking and gesturing into the corner making whooshing noises whenever a 1 would roll.

It was why one replacement character was a monk and I took a level of Battledancer (chaotic monk) just to be able to use unarmed strikes. (Completely stupid, I know)

One idea for natural 1 rolls is that it provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the creature you were attacking with that hit. Sort of like a critical allows you the chance to make an extra attack so a critical failure allows the chance for the enemy to make an attack.

To me this is the most balanced way of doing it but it is still a shit idea.

Another is ignoring basic rules in special situations because 'it makes sense'.

For example my party was ambushed by some Kua-Toa (?) firing darts. The only two that actually got hit was me and the scout. Since we both had Uncanny Dodge neither of us took any Sneak Attack damage.
However, the DM decided to give us the damage anyway because we could have taken them all on anyway and for some reason it made sense or that we were completely unaware and unprepared?

(Read: DM pissed that we weren't really hurt so decided to hurt us anyway)

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:35 am

One idea for natural 1 rolls is that it provokes an Attack of Opportunity from the creature you were attacking with that hit. Sort of like a critical allows you the chance to make an extra attack so a critical failure allows the chance for the enemy to make an attack.

TWF doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:53 am

No way Parthenon.

The 16th level fighter is not going to fuck up more often in a minute of fighting than a level 1 fighter would. At least not if levels are an indicator of power.

The 16th level fighter should not be fucking up 4 times more often because he attacks 4 times more than the lvl 1 fighter does. He should be fucking up less often, and have higher numbers than the newbie would.

I mean, that's what real life has taught me. The people who have the experience have the speed and the skill that a new person just cannot expect to have.

I think that a more reasonable solution would be that characters have "failure points" equivalent to their "number" in a skill (Skill Ranks, BaB, Caster Levels etc.).

If they get enough "botches" in an adventure, that is to say, if the 16th level fighter rolls 16 1's over the course of an adventure then they actually miss an attack on the 17th 1 that is rolled.

The number of 1's will accumulate faster (4x faster), but they have a much larger pool (16 times larger), so the upshoot would be that they fail 1/4 as often, but are also swinging 4 times faster. I think that that's reasonable.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:04 am

Yeah, one DM used the "1 provokes" rule. I didn't like it, being a TWF fighter, but whatever, I was still the MVP. The lol Level Adjustment/Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge/Geomancer simply sat behind his tower shield (3.0, where just having the thing gives you 3/4 cover or whatever) and, any time he ever provoked, made a "raising a tower shield in front of my face" motion.

The DM quickly hated tower shields, but I pretty much blame him for making AoOs so friggin' common.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:43 am

Yeah, I did say that its still a terrible idea, just that its better than hitting yourself, embarrassing yourself or losing your weapon.

J__E: Thats yet another statistic to keep track of. And from what your saying

Judging__Eagle wrote: ... then they actually miss an attack on the 17th 1 that is rolled.

it seems to mean that it is an auto-miss only on the (level+1)th nat 1. How often are you hitting on a 1 anyway? You'd just power attack more. This doesn't actually do anything.

Now if your saying that something worse than normal happens on the (level+1)th nat 1 then thats different. Still bad, but maybe not terrible.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:46 pm

The funniest thing about the bullshit fails?

I could probably pick up a weapon, and avoid fucking up with it in that way 5% of the time. I'd have a hard time actually hurting the other guy, because I have no combat training with such weapons, and if the other guy knows what he's doing I'm dead, but I at least wouldn't go hurting myself with the damn thing.

Now consider that the D&D characters are much better at hitting the thing with the other thing than I am...

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:52 pm

No, you don't really care about how to use a weapon.

Really, the principle of weapon strikes is pretty much the same.

You use the weapon as a force multiplier. Ether by using an edge/blade or point (daggers, stilletos, polearms, sword blades) or by increasing the arc of your body's reach in order to gain more torsional leverage (axes, swords, baseball bats, 2-handed swords). There are a few outliers, like the axe, since turning recovery into a smooth and natural motion requires some practice, but a sword and a mace really are just using the principle of levers to make you hit harder.

The parts that require teaching have little to do with swinging a weapon and more to do with stuff with more general applications.

Things like:
-"increasing your strength (and thus speed",
-"knowing where to hit an enemy" (whether with a baseball bat or a longsword, swinging at a joint is always going to fuck up your opponent)
-"knowing how to read your enemy" (you can seriously beat a guy with a Katana while using a wooden backscratcher, but you have to know what is going on in order to do so, not because you're an expert of using the back-scratcher).

Screw-ups occur because you failed to do something that isn't related to swinging a weapon, more likely you failed to read your enemies movements, or that your enemy was simply faster (i.e. stronger) than you and dodged your attack.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:07 pm

How about the surprise round? Where sometimes you're better off failing your spot/listen check and getting shot than making it...

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:15 pm

Judging__Eagle wrote:No, you don't really care about how to use a weapon.

Despite the risk of getting into a internet discussion of martial arts in real life, I'll bite.

Training to use a weapon involves learning how to not hurt yourself with your 'lever', which is important and non-trivial when you're swinging around a sword or a flail. This training is fairly specific to the weapon, although there is certainly overlap.

Technique also involves learning how to mount an effective defense with a weapon. You're probably not going to be using a staff the same way that you use a sword.

Finally, people have put unimaginable amounts of time into figuring out how to beat a specific defense of a specific weapon with another specific weapon.

While I'm not saying that speed isn't essential (it's probably the one thing every martial art trains), or that building your strength is useless (you need to be able to use the weapon), the are important aspects to training that are weapon specific.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:16 pm

Judging__Eagle wrote:No, you don't really care about how to use a weapon.

Really, the principle of weapon strikes is pretty much the same.

You use the weapon as a force multiplier. Ether by using an edge/blade or point (daggers, stilletos, polearms, sword blades) or by increasing the arc of your body's reach in order to gain more torsional leverage (axes, swords, baseball bats, 2-handed swords). There are a few outliers, like the axe, since turning recovery into a smooth and natural motion requires some practice, but a sword and a mace really are just using the principle of levers to make you hit harder.

The parts that require teaching have little to do with swinging a weapon and more to do with stuff with more general applications.

Things like:
-"increasing your strength (and thus speed",
-"knowing where to hit an enemy" (whether with a baseball bat or a longsword, swinging at a joint is always going to fuck up your opponent)
-"knowing how to read your enemy" (you can seriously beat a guy with a Katana while using a wooden backscratcher, but you have to know what is going on in order to do so, not because you're an expert of using the back-scratcher).

Screw-ups occur because you failed to do something that isn't related to swinging a weapon, more likely you failed to read your enemies movements, or that your enemy was simply faster (i.e. stronger) than you and dodged your attack.

Actually, a friend of mine went to a workshop on using a broadsword. He said that you can just swing, but there's also techniques involving physics tricks which can be pretty scary...

When I see him again, I'll ask him about it again.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:34 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I'm not big on specifically 1s doing much of anything, because 1s happen proportionately to how often you roll dice. Therefore it punishes action. I mean crap, a Giant squid gets more than a single one every round on average once you take into account the fact that his attack routine is broken up into 11 attacks and 10 improved grab rolls. They really can't be doing something embarrassing every time they roll a 1 or it won't even be embarrassing or unique any more - it would literally be every damn round.

Yeah, one way to get around this problem is just to say that the natural 1 fumble applies only to the first attack roll made in a round.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:04 pm

Maxus wrote:
Actually, a friend of mine went to a workshop on using a broadsword. He said that you can just swing, but there's also techniques involving physics tricks which can be pretty scary...

When I see him again, I'll ask him about it again.

Exactly. It's the principle of using simple machines, like a wedge (daggers, spears) or a lever (hammer, mace) or a combination of both (swords, axes).

I'm betting that giving your friend a baseball bat is just as dumb as giving him anything else.

The most basic trick that I can think of is this: when swinging with your arms, the order of what needs to move is: feet-> legs -> Hips -> torso -> arms -> weapon

Which is just part of the basics of throwing a solid punch. You want your whole body pushing the strike through the air and into your enemy, not your arm alone. The arm alone is weak; the whole body lands on your enemy like a pile of bricks.

That lesson is taught in nearly every martial art that discusses striking.

[edit: I sound like a pompous ass, just thought I'd add that in there]

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:46 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:I'm not big on specifically 1s doing much of anything, because 1s happen proportionately to how often you roll dice. Therefore it punishes action. I mean crap, a Giant squid gets more than a single one every round on average once you take into account the fact that his attack routine is broken up into 11 attacks and 10 improved grab rolls. They really can't be doing something embarrassing every time they roll a 1 or it won't even be embarrassing or unique any more - it would literally be every damn round.
Yeah, one way to get around this problem is just to say that the natural 1 fumble applies only to the first attack roll made in a round.

Or one could just not have fumble rules.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:24 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:
RandomCasualty2 wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:I'm not big on specifically 1s doing much of anything, because 1s happen proportionately to how often you roll dice. Therefore it punishes action. I mean crap, a Giant squid gets more than a single one every round on average once you take into account the fact that his attack routine is broken up into 11 attacks and 10 improved grab rolls. They really can't be doing something embarrassing every time they roll a 1 or it won't even be embarrassing or unique any more - it would literally be every damn round.
Yeah, one way to get around this problem is just to say that the natural 1 fumble applies only to the first attack roll made in a round.
Or one could just not have fumble rules.

+1.