Stupid House Rules

[Maginomicon]

This thread's purpose is to call out mind-bogglingly stupid house rules you've seen GMs lay down that make you want to throttle them. Bonus points if they have a "my way or the highway" attitude about it.

Please only add house rules you've personally seen your GM use.

Please refrain from referring to entire house rule subsystems, specific book permitting/banning, or book primacy stuff.

Please refer to what system the house rule was used in if it's something other than 3.5 or PF.

Please do not argue/"debate" here about the legality of a given house rule. If you want to do that, take it to its own thread.

-----------------------

1. Will disbelief (such as for Silent Image) only requires seeing the illusion to "interact" with it.

2. It doesn't matter how far above (by flight) or below (by burrowing) you are relative to an enemy; if you enter their "square", it provokes an AoO.

-----------------------

EDIT: By the way, don't bother reading this thread past the 15th page or so. Seriously, it's not worth your time. If I ever get the notion to make such a knee-jerk-reply kind of thread again, punch me in the head, please.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Critical Success and Critical failures on ALL. FREAKING.ROLLS!

[Arael666]

My DM has a houserule that dictates that in a natural one attack roll "you fell down". Sure, melee combat is so overpowered already, let's just make it harder by adding a fixed 5% chache of uther failure.

The thing that really pisses me off is that when that happens to the monster's he trows at uss he states "a spider can't fall down", and calls it a day.

[Studoku]

If a range attack misses someone engaged in melee, it hits whoever they were meleeing.

Yes, automatically hits. Yes, it's a valid strategy to get your attack bonus as low as possible, dual wield crossbows and shoot your allies. It's a shame I didn't get to try it.

[Curmudgeon]

Not current house rules, but those I've encountered for D&D 3.5 in the past:

• Sneak attack is limited to once/turn.
• Your full round of actions must be declared at the start of your turn, and you can't adjust when you discover new information or some enemy uses an immediate action to change the situation; declared actions which turn out to be impossible mean you waste the rest of your turn.
• You can Hide for hours without any opposed Spot check.
• Ready uses ESP, because you can Ready an action that's triggered when something you can't see/hear/feel happens.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Not current house rules, but those I've encountered for D&D 3.5 in the past:
[*]Sneak attack is limited to once/turn.

That one is particularly irksome and common

[Arael666]

If a range attack misses someone engaged in melee, it hits whoever they were meleeing.

my DM had a similar rule, but you had to roll again and overcome the AC of the "new target". I don't know how, but I managed to change his mind on thise one.

[JonU]

I had one where I couldn't sneak attack after the first round even when flanking. Talk about totally nerfing my character. Then I kept getting told my rogue should be doing more damage.

[Segev]

While it was a fun mechanic for those who had the Force, I had a GM who ran SAGA edition Star Wars with the house rule that Force powers were at-will, rather than per-encounter. It was in line with the flavor of the setting more than the SAGA rules were, but man did it make Force-users just win over anybody else.

[Dusk Eclipse]

While it was a fun mechanic for those who had the Force, I had a GM who ran SAGA edition Star Wars with the house rule that Force powers were at-will, rather than per-encounter. It was in line with the flavor of the setting more than the SAGA rules were, but man did it make Force-users just win over anybody else.

Isn't that pretty much Canon?

[Segev]

In-setting? Yes. In-RAW? I don't know how Force-use compares under normal rules to non-Force-use. Never played with the standard rules.

[Deox]

In-setting? Yes. In-RAW? I don't know how Force-use compares under normal rules to non-Force-use. Never played with the standard rules.

Move Object pretty much trumps the majority.

On topic -
*DM ruled that sneak attacks were eligible for multipliers.
*DM ruled Close Combat Shot still provoked AoO.
*DM ruled Gust of Wind could not affect vampires while in gaseous form.

[Amphetryon]

Had a DM once rule that Critical Hits needed to hit their crit ranges on the confirmation roll in order to succeed, rather than merely hit. So everyone wanted Falchion/Rapier/Scimitar, and nobody, ever, wanted a Pick.

[Firechanter]

Oh yeah. I have a few of these to share, from a former DM of mine.

the obligatory "Bad Things Happen on a Natural 1": in our case, on a Nat1 you'd hit an adjacent ally, or if none was in reach, you'd drop the weapon. On a good day, the threatened ally was allowed a Ref save DC 15 to avoid the blow.
at one point way into the campaign, he started having us roll CON checks during night watch. And not even in the way D20 ability checks are usually done, but so that a Con 16 meant a friggin 20% chance that you couldn't keep yourself awake 2 hours.
I eventually snapped when he had the _Elf_ fall asleep this way. I got a bit loud, and he never asked for a stay-awake-check again.
also, there were no confirmation rolls, so Threat = Crit. Which is not _so_ horrible but still works against the players in the long run (because PCs usually have higher ACs than monsters).
he also didn't pay any attention to WBL, and we had times when the Rogue had 10x more wealth than the Ranger (and everyone except the Rogue was _way_ below WBL). Also, even though we had gold, he very rarely gave us the chance to spend it on anything.

Those were about the dumbest things I remember.
But to his honour I have to say that not all things were horrible with him; he allowed a very generous char generation method and was very accommodating in terms of retraining / making changes to your character.

[Curmudgeon]

he also didn't pay any attention to WBL, and we had times when the Rogue had 10x more wealth than the Ranger (and everyone except the Rogue was _way_ below WBL).

It's not the DM's job to police PC wealth; their job is done if they provide enough treasure per encounter, and then it's up to the players how that ends up being distributed. Would you want the DM to force someone with Vow of Poverty to keep their proportional share of treasure? Or just keep filling the pockets of a character who used vast quantities of consumable items? The Wealth by Level schedule is there to enable building characters above 1st level, and that's really its only proper use.

Also, even though we had gold, he very rarely gave us the chance to spend it on anything.

So the food was terrible, and the portions were small?

Seriously, that is a problem. Was the campaign always in sparsely-populated areas? Was there no way, like Teleport spells, to get somewhere with decent-size markets?

[Greenish]

Would you want the DM to force someone with Vow of Poverty to keep their proportional share of treasure?

VoP actually does require you to take your share of the treasure (and then donate it). Just waiving your share is forbidden, if my memory serves.

[Chronos]

Not so much a stupid one as a peculiar one: My group rules that summons spells resolve during the same turn they're cast. Now, I'm playing a druid. The first time I summoned something, the DM immediately asked me what my summon was doing that turn. "It's not there yet; summoning takes a full round." To judge by the other players' reactions, I think they thought I was trying to get away with something by rules-lawyering. I pretty quickly got to the point where I decided it wasn't worth arguing against the capabilities of my own character.

[cerin616]

VoP actually does require you to take your share of the treasure (and then donate it). Just waiving your share is forbidden, if my memory serves.

This is true

[Maginomicon]

Would you want the DM to force someone with Vow of Poverty to keep their proportional share of treasure?

VoP actually does require you to take your share of the treasure (and then donate it). Just waiving your share is forbidden, if my memory serves.

This is true

Not to be a hardass, but what did I just say?

This thread's purpose is to call out mind-bogglingly stupid house rules you've seen GMs lay down that make you want to throttle them.

[snip]

Please do not argue/"debate" here about the legality of a given house rule. If you want to do that, take it to its own thread.

I get that you're "correcting" him. Doesn't matter. Please stay on topic.

[Metahuman1]

I had a DM run an OA game were he rule if you played anything that used a sword pretty much any opposing NPC could challenge you to a duel and you basically had to accept or the whole party faced social stigma. The guy won't allow a Warblade in the game cause tome of battle + OA is borked, but the druid is fine as is, it's the guy trying to run a fighter with TWF for duel katana's that's broken and needs to constantly be beaten down at every fight by things in hyper artifact armor or 20th lvl NPC nobles who happen to be master swordsmen. Yeah.


Personally, I always wanted to get back in touch with that guy and get him to give me a copy of his setting info/notes, cause it wasn't generic Rokugan he was running, so that I could get another more sensible DM to run that game again, just so I could use a high op Bardblade or something and stomp some of those smug Bastards we kept running across and maybe keep one of the legendary suits of badassdome we kept having to fight but never got to keep.

[Firechanter]

It's not the DM's job to police PC wealth; their job is done if they provide enough treasure per encounter, and then it's up to the players how that ends up being distributed.

Ah right, that was another thing. He dealt out treasure in very odd ways. For example, sometimes everyone was permitted one roll on the random magic item chart. So one player rolled a Vestment of Faith, and another player rolled half of a pair of lion statuettes. At other times, he rolled up items on the fly. Either way, it happened that a lot of the items only really made sense in the hands of the Rogue, and certain other classes just never got what they needed.
Also, another stupid houserule, he'd allow us to sell loot at a QUARTER of the list price, so selling magic items just didn't make any sense at all.

Seriously, that is a problem. Was the campaign always in sparsely-populated areas? Was there no way, like Teleport spells, to get somewhere with decent-size markets?

Yeah, I got an anecdote for you there. First, we only travelled through wilderness and ghost towns for I don't know how long; we didn't see a populated city from levels 5 to 8.
When my Cleric finally hit level 9, we finally got to a _real_ city (Phlan), and I got access to Teleport via Travel Domain to boot. I wanted to buy a Wisdom ammy. Then the following dialogue ensued (at the beginning of a session):
DM: "Weeeell, then we need to see if you can find one."
me: "You know what, I can teleport 900 miles per day now. I'll port all the way to Waterdeep if need be, might take a week, but I'm not going on another quest with this cash weighing me down."
DM: "Alright, do you want to roleplay that out?" [in a tone that implied I probably wouldn't want to]
me: "Well if you insist, but why don't we ask the other _four players_ here what they think about sitting around for an hour while you make me play out a shopping tour."

Then he finally let me have that f...ing ammy.

[Serpentine]

First D&D game I ever played:
- Clerics don't wear armour because "they believe their god will protect them".
- If two very attractive people come across one another, they must do opposed Charisma checks. The one who loses the check falls madly in love with the other.

[Zubrowka74]

- If two very attractive people come across one another, they must do opposed Charisma checks. The one who loses the check falls madly in love with the other.

So, what happens to ugly people ? They never fall in love with the pretties ?

[Dusk Eclipse]

I would assume they would fall for the pretties why the pretties wouldn't fall for them.

[cerin616]

Not to be a hardass, but what did I just say?

I get that you're "correcting" him. Doesn't matter. Please stay on topic.

Im pretty sure its related in the fact that its discussing the fact that "its not a house rule, but is instead a function of the game"
Its not the DMs job to monitor player wealth, its the players job to monitor players wealth, and thus "not paying attention to WBL" is not a house rule when considering the fact that its in the middle of the game. And this is supported by the fact that players can voluntarily waive their share of loot. Which is supported by VoP stating that you are not allowed to do so anymore.

[Serpentine]

Uglies fall for ALL the pretties.
(it may have actually been when anyone met a particularly attractive person, rather than specifically two attractive people meeting)

[Dusk Eclipse]

Still pretty stupid.

[Traab]

Ah right, that was another thing. He dealt out treasure in very odd ways. For example, sometimes everyone was permitted one roll on the random magic item chart. So one player rolled a Vestment of Faith, and another player rolled half of a pair of lion statuettes. At other times, he rolled up items on the fly. Either way, it happened that a lot of the items only really made sense in the hands of the Rogue, and certain other classes just never got what they needed.
Also, another stupid houserule, he'd allow us to sell loot at a QUARTER of the list price, so selling magic items just didn't make any sense at all.



Yeah, I got an anecdote for you there. First, we only travelled through wilderness and ghost towns for I don't know how long; we didn't see a populated city from levels 5 to 8.
When my Cleric finally hit level 9, we finally got to a _real_ city (Phlan), and I got access to Teleport via Travel Domain to boot. I wanted to buy a Wisdom ammy. Then the following dialogue ensued (at the beginning of a session):
DM: "Weeeell, then we need to see if you can find one."
me: "You know what, I can teleport 900 miles per day now. I'll port all the way to Waterdeep if need be, might take a week, but I'm not going on another quest with this cash weighing me down."
DM: "Alright, do you want to roleplay that out?" [in a tone that implied I probably wouldn't want to]
me: "Well if you insist, but why don't we ask the other _four players_ here what they think about sitting around for an hour while you make me play out a shopping tour."

Then he finally let me have that f...ing ammy.

Thats just awesome. I get the feeling that if you HAD tries the whole "teleport myself to waterdeep" solo adventure, you would have spent every round in between casting teleport getting your spellbook stolen, ambushed, kidnapped, landing in dangerous terrain like an inexplicable volcano, etc etc etc.

On the other hand, I also wouldnt be surprised if he decided to punish you anyways. "Ok, I will handwave the week spent traveling and getting your precious item, now lets move on to the quest." Then from now on every person you have to rescue is already dead. Any bandit nest or enemy army you have to infiltrate is now insanely dug in and protected, and any time you complain he would go, "Well, talk to the cleric, HE is the one who wasted a week going on a shopping trip to waterdeep."

[Tengu_temp]

Four different DND games (or NWN RP servers, to be precise):
1. Paladins do not loot fallen enemies. Doing so is frowned upon, and can be a case for falling.
2a. If you multiclass, you need to have at least 4 levels in each class. Because taking a single-level dip in fighter or rogue is what filthy powergamers do.
2b. Rangers don't get spellcasting, because Aragorn didn't cast spells. They get nothing in return.
3. Clerics are not supposed to use heavy weapons or armor.
4. Adamantine weapons and armor are all Drow-made and turn to dust in sunlight.

[Dusk Eclipse]

.....
ten characters