Worst Observed Rules Interpretations (by DM or Players)

[ChrisFortyTwo]

I figure we can tell some stories about how DMs, Fellow Players, or even ourselves have Interpreted rules completely incorrectly.

For instance, one game I played (3.0), the DM had a dice rolling system that was "based off" the 4d6 drop one. Instead, you roll all 24 dice, dropping the lowest 6. Then you can combine the others in any combination you want. Well, everyone had a couple 18s and I think only one person included a 1 in any of their stats. I wasn't complaining about that one, but it was a pretty poor interpretation of probability, anyway.

In the same game, one of the guys was playing a wizard of some elf sub-race (which had a racial +2 Int, of course). That wasn't a big deal. Then, during the game, he casts fireball (remember, first level characters). I said - "Hey, you can't cast fireball, that's a 3rd level spell." He responded "It's my bonus spell for high intelligence." He thought that you could cast off the bonus spell list before you got that level spells. I wonder what 5th level spell this 1st level wizard had prepared. Heck, with the right combination, a cleric could raise dead at first level.

Anyway, share your stories, and I'll try to think of others.

[Mongoose87]

I seem to recall there being a "debate" on these very boards about whether a Sorcerer is a spontaneous caster.

[Kylarra]

In the same game, one of the guys was playing a wizard of some elf sub-race (which had a racial +2 Int, of course). That wasn't a big deal. Then, during the game, he casts fireball (remember, first level characters). I said - "Hey, you can't cast fireball, that's a 3rd level spell." He responded "It's my bonus spell for high intelligence." He thought that you could cast off the bonus spell list before you got that level spells. I wonder what 5th level spell this 1st level wizard had prepared. Heck, with the right combination, a cleric could raise dead at first level.

We convinced a 2ed DM that our cleric should get his bonus spells for his Wis before he could cast them once.

I think a few days ago there was a thread about an incantrix applying metamagic to blasty spells with spellcraft checks.

[Greenish]

On these very boards: rogues can apply SA damage to only one attack per round.

Anyway, dice pools (in the OP) could've been just a houserule.

[CrypticOcean]

A certain player at my table conjured up the ludicrous idea that Ennervation was an aging effect, and argued with me for the better part of an hour about how the Druid's Timeless Body ability granted you full immunity to Ennervation, Energy Drain, and any of their close cousins.

In the end it was merely because he imagined "that was what the spell did" to its victims.

This same player also attempted to use the Druid's Wild Shape ability to turn into an Ogre Mage, due to the fact that the Druid's Wild Shape text says it operates "Like Polymorph". I suppose he decided not to read the parts that said "expect as noted here", and the fairly obvious part before that which states "Any Small or Medium -Animal-."

Thankfully, while he made many more misinterpretations of the rules, I cannot recall them, and I do not have to endure his overly-aggressive nature any longer.

[Claudius Maximus]

In one group I've seen they were under the impression that the Saint template added its charisma modifier to the save DCs of every one of the entire party's abilities. The Saint of course had 30+ charisma.

[AtwasAwamps]

On these very boards: rogues can apply SA damage to only one attack per round.

That's my group!

When I DM, that rule is not in effect, as are many of their other rules, such as not being able to take a full move action and make a single attack as a standard action, not being able to attack on diagonal or threaten on a diagonal, not being able to...well, there's a lot.

[arguskos]

In one group I've seen they were under the impression that the Saint template added its charisma modifier to the save DCs of every one of the entire party's abilities. The Saint of course had 30+ charisma.

Wait... what? How... I... but... I mean... WHAT?! How you could you even parse that out of anything?!

[hangedman1984]

I was read an argument on the WotC forums where some said that ranged touch attack spells required 2 standard actions, 1 to cast the spell, 1 to attack with it

[Volthawk]

For instance, one game I played (3.0), the DM had a dice rolling system that was "based off" the 4d6 drop one. Instead, you roll all 24 dice, dropping the lowest 6. Then you can combine the others in any combination you want. Well, everyone had a couple 18s and I think only one person included a 1 in any of their stats. I wasn't complaining about that one, but it was a pretty poor interpretation of probability, anyway.

Actually, that sounds like quite a cool stat generation method to me.

[Claudius Maximus]

Wait... what? How... I... but... I mean... WHAT?! How you could you even parse that out of anything?!

It does have a DC increasing ability and an aura. I guess they just... combined them? And made it work off charisma? They also thought the same ability also granted his charisma bonus to his allies' saving throws, like some kind of mass Divine Grace. They also didn't really apply the LA for the template.

[Dr.Epic]

I seem to recall there being a "debate" on these very boards about whether a Sorcerer is a spontaneous caster.

That's the whole thing that makes them different from wizards.

[arguskos]

It does have a DC increasing ability and an aura. I guess they just... combined them? And made it work off charisma? They also thought the same ability also granted his charisma bonus to his allies' saving throws, like some kind of mass Divine Grace. They also didn't really apply the LA for the template.

Thank god I no longer play with groups that fail to read basic stuff like that. That's all I have to say about that.

[Tinydwarfman]

I seem to recall there being a "debate" on these very boards about whether a Sorcerer is a spontaneous caster.

This one. This one trumps every other mis-interpretation I have ever seen.

[Reynard]

I seem to recall there being a "debate" on these very boards about whether a Sorcerer is a spontaneous caster.

I saw that, that was hilarious.

Well, I suppose a re-interpretation of the 3.5 charging rules (for monsters, not us) was the most game-destroying (as in, we stopped playing and argued).

[valadil]

I can't remember if this was MERP or Rolemaster, but one of my GMs told me about an early experience he had in his brother's first attempt at a game. There were tables that showed what bonuses you had at various levels. Pretty much exactly like the class charts in 3.5 The group assumed that at those levels you gained the bonus listed, not realizing that those scores were cumulative. In D&D terms, a 5th level fighter would have had 1+2+3+4+5 = 15 BAB.

The worst that I participated in involved a couple players (myself excluded) cowing a newbie GM into doing what we wanted. The worst bit of it was that we convinced him that hacking into military computers and launching enough nukes to blow up all of earth aside from New Zealand required a single computer skill check.

[The Glyphstone]

I remember an old arena battle where one player, with a melee character he had stacked a bunch of size increases plus Monkey Grip on, managed to convince the DM that he could ignore Displacement/Invisibility effects because his Colossal greataxe had an edge 5ft wide, making it impossible to miss the target in the square.

[JeenLeen]

We didn't realize the limitation based on duration for Divine Metamagic, so for a while we had a lot of extra persistent buffs on our team.

[Greenish]

not being able to take a full move action and make a single attack as a standard action

You can't do that unless you're restricted to single standard or move action for that round (ie. surprise rounds etc.).

[Edit]: Even then, it has to be charge (movement in straight line, +2 attack, -2 AC).

[pffh]

We didn't quite understand magic weapons or armor and thought for example that a +3 weapon would have +3 to hit, +3 to damage and some of the other effects that are worth up to +3.

[Mongoose87]

We didn't quite understand magic weapons or armor and thought for example that a +3 weapon would have +3 to hit, +3 to damage and some of the other effects that are worth up to +3.

I had this problem, too. Or, something similar. Until I started looking over the SRD, I thought a +1 Flaming Longsword wold have +2 to hit, +2 damage and +1d6 fire damage, and was a +2 weapon.

[Zeful]

I've seen an argument that Heighten Spell doesn't increase the spell slot used because it doesn't have a number with a plus in front of it.

[Eurus]

I remember an old arena battle where one player, with a melee character he had stacked a bunch of size increases plus Monkey Grip on, managed to convince the DM that he could ignore Displacement/Invisibility effects because his Colossal greataxe had an edge 5ft wide, making it impossible to miss the target in the square.

That kind of makes sense, actually. Not from a rules perspective, but a kind of sense anyway... More sense than a titan bloodline pixie wielding a gargantuan weapon but still having a 0 foot reach, at least.

[marjan]

I remember someone on these or WotC boards (can't remember which one), claiming monks can make AoOs into squares they don't threaten.

[Togo]

I had a DM who thought that you couldn't charge except in a straight line towards the target... so if that straight line towards the target didn't lead to the middle of a square, you couldn't charge. In other words, you could only charge in the same way as a queen in chess - when your opponent was in a straight or diagonal line of squares.

The more mundane example was a DM who thought that ray of enfeeblement stacked with itself, meaning that it would immobalise any character after two or three hits...

[Ruinix]

on warhammer fantasy. a character drink the light of law, so he actually can destroy caos minions on sight and heal others :S bleh that was the DM interpretation of the thing :S


____


on merp rolemaster. on the char build my dm forgot to tell me "put 1 point in no armor" so when i take out the light vest i was on -25 defense ¬¬


____


7th sea. a runemaster casting lighting bolts with 8D8 every round with the skill on 2lev XDDDD due a missinterpretation of the book from our dm. XDDD was hilarius when he nerf the the character. on the first encounter after that we lose our ship, and everything XDDDD

[Nohwl]

i once played with a person who thought attacks of opportunity provoked attacks of opportunity. and he let it infinite loop.

[Riffington]

We didn't quite understand magic weapons or armor and thought for example that a +3 weapon would have +3 to hit, +3 to damage and some of the other effects that are worth up to +3.

Did this make the game better or worse?

[Mongoose87]

i once played with a person who thought attacks of opportunity provoked attacks of opportunity. and he let it infinite loop.

Robilar's Gambit much?

[Morty]

The more mundane example was a DM who thought that ray of enfeeblement stacked with itself, meaning that it would immobalise any character after two or three hits...

That's actually how it works in Temple of Elemental Evil videogame... and it's not the biggest bug in there.
As far as "creative" rules interpretations go, I don't have any really colorful examples, but I remember that when I made my first character, a wizard, I thought Magic Penetration adds 2 to all my spells' DCs. After another encounter in which a group of enemies fell victim to an irresistible Sleep spell, my DM began to suspect something's wrong. Nevermind that I also forgot it has a 1 round casting time. >_>