PDA

View Full Version : Suspected House Rules



AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 11:05 AM
Okay, so...these are things I suspect are houserules that my group uses, but I'm not sure. I'm having a hard time finding them in any books and they treat them like RAW (to the point where one that I am 100% sure is NOT a rule had a response of "yeah, it's definitely in there" when I asked about it). I would appreciate some help.

1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.
2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.
3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

illyrus
2010-03-08, 11:07 AM
Those all sound like house rules to me if you're playing normal 3.5 and not something else or some variant of it.

Saph
2010-03-08, 11:09 AM
1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.

Houserule, and rather a weird one.


2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.

No, that's if you're grappling. Though I think there's a similar rule to this if your allies are granting cover.


3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

If a full-round spell, this is RAW. If a standard action spell, this is a houserule.

BRC
2010-03-08, 11:09 AM
Okay, so...these are things I suspect are houserules that my group uses, but I'm not sure. I'm having a hard time finding them in any books and they treat them like RAW (to the point where one that I am 100% sure is NOT a rule had a response of "yeah, it's definitely in there" when I asked about it). I would appreciate some help.

1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.
2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.
3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

All are Houserules.
Attacking is a standard action, so you can move your full speed and then make a single attack in a round (You can't full attack though).
Firing into Melee incurs a -4 penalty, but there is no chance to hit adjacent targets by RAW.
Most spells are standard actions, so you can move and cast a standard action spell in the same round.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 11:11 AM
::cracks knuckles::

There will be reckoning.

Thank you for the help. I am running a game for these guys and I'm going to be wiping these rules off the board in my game, stating that they are houserules that I disagree with as they make the game more complicated and step in the way of strategies on both sides.

I am...very irritated. I am a system junkie and I do not like having systems being misrepresented. Its not their fault, but it will make my life a lot easier.

EDIT: Does anyone know where they might have come from? I think they might be holdovers from 3.0?

sofawall
2010-03-08, 11:11 AM
1 - :smallconfused: Strange rule. How do charges work, then?

2 - I believe that was a 3.0 rule that got taken out in the conversion.

3 - That's turning a Standard Action spell into a full-round spell, sorta. That, again, is just weird.

Mongoose87
2010-03-08, 11:12 AM
1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.


How do you charge?

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 11:12 AM
How do you charge?

THey count charge as a special action.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-08, 11:12 AM
2 is actually kind of fun(I've played with it before), but tends to further weaken already poor ranged players, and leads to inter-party conflict. I like the idea of it, but in practice, it works out poorly.

Glimbur
2010-03-08, 11:13 AM
1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.
2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.
3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

All three of these are house rules.

1) See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm). You can move up to your speed as a move action. You can attack as a standard action. Out of curiosity, how does your group handle charging?

2)See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#preciseShot). You just take a -4 for targetting an opponent that is in melee; there is no chance of hitting anyone else by RAW.

3) See the first link; standard actions don't interfere with move actions.

Oslecamo
2010-03-08, 11:13 AM
Firing into Melee incurs a -4 penalty, but there is no chance to hit adjacent targets by RAW.

Don't forget the charge rule(double move in a straight line and attack). My first D&D campaign went one year of hit and run because we didn't know we could charge, so move-shoot-move-shoot was extremely effective.:smalltongue:

Saph
2010-03-08, 11:16 AM
2 is actually kind of fun(I've played with it before), but tends to further weaken already poor ranged players, and leads to inter-party conflict. I like the idea of it, but in practice, it works out poorly.

I nearly had a character killed that way. Choker grappled my small, Strength 8 wizard, the party fighter decided to 'help' by cutting it off with a dwarven waraxe. I worked out afterwards that during that session I'd been in more danger from my party members than the monsters.

Nich_Critic
2010-03-08, 11:22 AM
For a long time my group thought 2 was RAW. We still play it in one of the campaigns since we have been from the beginning. We ruled that precise shot negated it, so anyone specializing in ranged attacks takes that feat FIRST.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 11:29 AM
For a long time my group thought 2 was RAW. We still play it in one of the campaigns since we have been from the beginning. We ruled that precise shot negated it, so anyone specializing in ranged attacks takes that feat FIRST.

This was a big problem to me. See, the way I read the rules for receiving the -4 when firing into melee is that you’re getting it because you are trying your HARDEST not to hit your allies. Precise shot means you’re a good enough shot that you don’t need to try that hard to not hit your allies. So if you’re taking a penalty in order to not hit your allies, why is there a chance to still hit your allies?

EDIT: I really want to know where they got the half-move attack thing, because they SNAPPED at me when an NPC in my game did it, saying "It's 3.5, not 4.0." They gonna get owned.

Tyndmyr
2010-03-08, 11:29 AM
I nearly had a character killed that way. Choker grappled my small, Strength 8 wizard, the party fighter decided to 'help' by cutting it off with a dwarven waraxe. I worked out afterwards that during that session I'd been in more danger from my party members than the monsters.

Thats the issue. It can be hilarious, yes, but you've got one guy who desperately wants his teammates to not help...and teammates generally don't want to just stand there and help.

Im still trying to figure out a good way to incorporate friendly fire such that it makes tactics more interesting instead of crippling the party.

Edit: Perhaps allow characters to forgo the -4 modifier unless they have precise shot, but doing so involves risk of friendly fire? That way, it's a possibly useful option, but unlikely to result in killing your friends.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 11:31 AM
Thats the issue. It can be hilarious, yes, but you've got one guy who desperately wants his teammates to not help...and teammates generally don't want to just stand there and help.

Im still trying to figure out a good way to incorporate friendly fire such that it makes tactics more interesting instead of crippling the party.

An idea I just had, based on my reading of precise shot, etc.: If you take the -4 penalty, you won't hit your opponent. If you want to fire into melee without a -4 penalty and don't have precise shot, you can do so, but risk the chance of hitting an ally.

EDIT: Sonuva...you ninja'd me yourself!

Saph
2010-03-08, 11:31 AM
This was a big problem to me. See, the way I read the rules for receiving the -4 when firing into melee is that you’re getting it because you are trying your HARDEST not to hit your allies. Precise shot means you’re a good enough shot that you don’t need to try that hard to not hit your allies. So if you’re taking a penalty in order to not hit your allies, why is there a chance to still hit your allies?

I think the 3.0 rules (or wherever it was) had the chance arising when your allies were giving the thing cover.

So without Precise Shot you had -8 and the chance of hitting an ally (-4 firing into melee, -4 cover), with Precise Shot you had -4 and the chance of hitting an ally, and with Improved Precise Shot you were fine.


Thats the issue. It can be hilarious, yes, but you've got one guy who desperately wants his teammates to not help...and teammates generally don't want to just stand there and help.

Im still trying to figure out a good way to incorporate friendly fire such that it makes tactics more interesting instead of crippling the party.

Edit: Perhaps allow characters to forgo the -4 modifier unless they have precise shot, but doing so involves risk of friendly fire? That way, it's a possibly useful option, but unlikely to result in killing your friends.

That would work. Would add an extra decision step to the combat, though.

BTW, I've been trying to send you a PM with the Test of Spite: Monkening info, but your box is full. I posted the links in the Test of Spite thread instead.

LibraryOgre
2010-03-08, 11:34 AM
Okay, so...these are things I suspect are houserules that my group uses, but I'm not sure. I'm having a hard time finding them in any books and they treat them like RAW (to the point where one that I am 100% sure is NOT a rule had a response of "yeah, it's definitely in there" when I asked about it). I would appreciate some help.

1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.
2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.
3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

For sources, all of them look to be similar to stuff from 2nd edition.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-08, 11:58 AM
EDIT: I really want to know where they got the half-move attack thing, because they SNAPPED at me when an NPC in my game did it, saying "It's 3.5, not 4.0." They gonna get owned.

Hahah, wow are they going to be surprised when you pull out the rulings in the books.

ericgrau
2010-03-08, 12:03 PM
EDIT: Does anyone know where they might have come from? I think they might be holdovers from 3.0?
1 - No idea. They may be thinking that you no longer have time to attack. Which is silly because that's what double moves are for; if you double move then you don't have time to attack.
2 - Holdover from 3.0
3 - Possible caster nerf, as the ability to both move and cast annoys some.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 12:05 PM
3 - Possible caster nerf, as the ability to both move and cast annoys some.

Hahahaha. This is a group that believe the fighter is always stronger than a bard.

ericgrau
2010-03-08, 12:08 PM
Well, I meant mainly for wizards, clerics and so forth. Weak bards are a common conception. Have you not read the 5 dozen jokes on Elan's effectiveness? And it also depends on optimization. Just about anything can be stronger than an unoptimized bard.

Telonius
2010-03-08, 12:20 PM
For #3's source ... the only thing I can think of is a misunderstanding of metamagic rules, applying an actual rule in places it doesn't belong.

#3 is actually true, but only if you're talking about a spontaneous caster applying a metamagic feat. Sorcerers (and Bards, and others) cast their spells spontaneously. If they happen to apply a metamagic feat to the spell, then casting the spell changes to a full-round action*. In this case, you can only take a 5-foot step. But it applies only under those circumstances. A Wizard can cast a metamagic spell and move. A Sorcerer can cast a regular spell and move. A Sorcerer can even cast a regular Feather Fall (casting time: immediate action), cast another spell, and move all in the same round.

* - note that this is not the same thing as a 1-round casting time. For spells that have a 1-round casting time, they take effect the round after the spell is complete.

Loren
2010-03-08, 12:23 PM
1 - I could see this coming from a miss understanding of the rules. For medium characters the base (how far they can move as a move action) is 30 ft, 20 for small and dwarves. A double move (a full round move) would be 60, so the full movement you could make in one round without running is 60. Consequently, you can only go half of your total potention walking/jogging speed and make a standard action.

However, given rule 1 and 3 it looks to me as though the group misinterpreted the move economy and have been working with only 1 standard action per turn. I'd recommend that they reread the rules about turn order (see Action page 135 of the PHB, also see Attack and Movement, same page)(the casting time of spells are in their description).
A character should get
-1 standard action and 1 move action or 1 full round action
-free actions
- 1 swift action and 1 immediate action (if these variant rules are in play)

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 12:29 PM
Yeeeah...I figure that's what its from. I'm not 100% sure, but it really does sound like an action economy mistake.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-08, 03:38 PM
- 1 swift action and 1 immediate action (if these variant rules are in play)

Or. One or the other. Never both.

If you use a swift action in your turn, you can't use an immediate action until your initiative comes up again. And if you use an immediate action on someone else's turn, you can't use a swift action on your next turn.

And they're not variant rules. They were rules written after the core rules were published that were intended to be used in all 3.5 products, and errata files explicitly change previous abilities that use "a free action you can make even if it's not your turn" and such into immediate actions.

For example (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/featherfall.htm).

TaintedLight
2010-03-08, 03:41 PM
1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.


Did the poor melee guy really need that kind of salt in the wounds?

Sounds like a DM with a vendetta against a well build ToB'er or fighter or somesuch to me.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 03:44 PM
Did the poor melee guy really need that kind of salt in the wounds?

Sounds like a DM with a vendetta against a well build ToB'er or fighter or somesuch to me.

Honestly, I don't KNOW. It makes NO sense and they're all convinced its the rules.

I'm going to be sitting them down before the next time we play my game and spell out EXACTLY what's going on.

TaintedLight
2010-03-08, 03:45 PM
Honestly, I don't KNOW. It makes NO sense and they're all convinced its the rules.

I'm going to be sitting them down before the next time we play my game and spell out EXACTLY what's going on.

Yeah, this basically means a couple of not-too-weird feat selections make the fighter in question completely worthless. Or, alternatively, just hit anything with a spell that halves movement speed and laugh at it.

sofawall
2010-03-08, 04:21 PM
If you use a swift action in your turn, you can't use an immediate action until your initiative comes up again.

That's actually incorrect. If you use a swift on turn X, you can use an immediate right after your turn is over, before the next person gets to act. This means no swift on turn X+1, though.

You got it mostly right, just missed that little bit.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-08, 04:21 PM
I really don't know why they did that. it makes combat...irritating.

lsfreak
2010-03-08, 04:23 PM
Honestly, I don't KNOW. It makes NO sense and they're all convinced its the rules.

To be fair, making spells take a full round (not a full-round action, but a full round - completion just before the start of the caster's next turn) does a lot to keep wizards and the like from becoming too powerful, and also make players think a lot more tactically. That's assuming wizards are more powerful in your group, which may well not be the case if you're not heavy optimizers.

@Yuki:
I was under the impression immediate actions count as the swift action for your next turn - you could potentially spend a swift action on your turn, followed by an immediate action during the next person's initiate count, if you really wanted to.


Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
Emphasis added.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-08, 04:55 PM
Hm. Okay, got it a little wrong then.

faceroll
2010-03-08, 05:22 PM
Does anyone know where they might have come from? I think they might be holdovers from 3.0?

The spellcasting one looks like a 2e holdover, the moving & attacking looks like they failed reading the rules, and in one of the 3e books, there's a variant where you don't have to take -4 for shooting into melee, but then you have a chance of hitting people you miss.

The main DM in my group played 1st & 2nd since the 80s, then upgraded to 3e at the turn of the century (haha, turn of the century. where's my monocle!!). We had similarly weird rules about movement, though in the other direction, until I started actually reading rule books. You could move 2x your speed in combat, but couldn't move after you attacked or cast a spell. Moving before then was fine.


I think the 3.0 rules (or wherever it was) had the chance arising when your allies were giving the thing cover.

So without Precise Shot you had -8 and the chance of hitting an ally (-4 firing into melee, -4 cover), with Precise Shot you had -4 and the chance of hitting an ally, and with Improved Precise Shot you were fine.

Them's still the rules. If you have an ally in LoS between you and your target, and no precise shot, you're effectively at -8 to hit. Precise shot reduces that to -4 and improved precise shot to -0.

ericgrau
2010-03-08, 05:26 PM
Them's still the rules. If you have an ally in LoS between you and your target, and no precise shot, you're effectively at -8 to hit. Precise shot reduces that to -4 and improved precise shot to -0.
That part is still a rule, but the chance of hitting your ally is gone.

Superglucose
2010-03-08, 05:27 PM
Houserule, and rather a weird one.

It's actually not that weird. What makes it weird is that your movement speed is how much you can move in a round not a full round action... while walking. My guess is the GM just didn't realize that you can hustle without incurring any penalties, which doubles your movement speed, which means you can move up to your movement speed as a move action (as opposed to half if walking).

krossbow
2010-03-08, 05:31 PM
I'm actually for Increasing the cast time of spells in D&D; hell, some systems take more than 1 round to cast alot of high level spells.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-08, 06:42 PM
I'm actually for Increasing the cast time of spells in D&D; hell, some systems take more than 1 round to cast alot of high level spells.

D&D did in 2e. Fireball had a casting time of 3 rounds, iirc. It was much more powerful (less hp all-around, fireball still did 1d6/level) and much more dangerous because you couldn't be sure stuff would still be where you wanted it when the spell went off.

Oh, also it expanded to fill its total volume no matter what. Hallways exploded with fire at both ends a lot.

obnoxious
sig

Pechvarry
2010-03-08, 06:45 PM
I think I can take a crack at explaining these problems, as they're misrepresentations I've run into before.



1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.
2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.
3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

1 - "half your speed" is a move action. This is technically correct from a "speed possible" perspective. When you take a single move action, you're moving at half your highest movement. I seem to remember some wording in (probably 3.0) PHB that offhandedly mentioned a single move action as half your speed that would lead to this.

2 - This is technically in the system but accounted for -- ranged attackers suffer a -4 penalty for firing into the melee to avoid accidentally shooting an ally. I've played a campaign like this and I hated it. Getting the -4 and randomly attacking nearby squares on a missed attack roll is massive double penalty.

3 - OK, I don't really have much to say about this except that most non-optimizing spellcasters (especially in games w/out dedicated rules-lawyering) simply see no use for a move action. After an entire campaign of spellcasters only moving when they actually need to, it gets ingrained that they simply can't.

Roderick_BR
2010-03-08, 08:04 PM
EDIT: I really want to know where they got the half-move attack thing, because they SNAPPED at me when an NPC in my game did it, saying "It's 3.5, not 4.0." They gonna get owned.
They obviously mistook it greatly from the rule that you can't FULL ATTACK after taking a move action (which means that you can't walk more than 5ft and still attack with the two weapons you are holding, for example), but you can still use a standard action for a single standard attack.
It's definitively not a holdover from any edition I know of.

So, they didn't do the research. Funny thing, I had a guy in my group that thought that Improved Initiative made you insta-win the initiative roll, unless someone else had it. That's the reason my other friend is DMing a PHB only session, to force the other guys to read the book.

Zaq
2010-03-08, 08:47 PM
I'd guess that the half-speed-to-attack one is based on a misunderstanding of the mounted combat rules. But it's still wrong.

JaronK
2010-03-08, 08:58 PM
1 - You cannot attack if you move more than half your speed in a round.

House rule. By RAW, you can make a move action (your full speed) and a standard action (attack). Also, charging obviously violates this.


2 - When firing into melee, a missed ranged attack can hit adjacent targets that you were not aiming for, including allies.

House rule. You just take a -4 penalty.


3 - When casting a spell of any kind, you can only take a five foot step during that round (whether that spell is arcane or divine, for standard action spells).

House rule. That would only be true for spells that take one full round to cast. Most spells take a standard action, and you could still take a move action.

JaronK

RebelRogue
2010-03-08, 09:13 PM
D&D did in 2e. Fireball had a casting time of 3 rounds, iirc. It was much more powerful (less hp all-around, fireball still did 1d6/level) and much more dangerous because you couldn't be sure stuff would still be where you wanted it when the spell went off.
It didn't have a casting time of 3 rounds, but a casting speed of 3. This essentially means you add 3 to the initiative count (lower is better in 2ed). And since any damage dealt to the mage while casting a spell disrupts it (no concentration checks here), high casting speeds are a real risk.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-08, 10:04 PM
It didn't have a casting time of 3 rounds, but a casting speed of 3. This essentially means you add 3 to the initiative count (lower is better in 2ed). And since any damage dealt to the mage while casting a spell disrupts it (no concentration checks here), high casting speeds are a real risk.

Dusted of my 2e books. My mistake. I'm a bit rusty.

Concentration really helped to mess things up.

obnoxious
sig

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-09, 08:56 AM
Oh, there was one other thing...if you crit on a smite evil/power attack, it doubles the damage dealt by those abilities, correct? Can't find a ruling on that anywhere either.

FishAreWet
2010-03-09, 09:01 AM
Everything but extra dice are multiplied.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-09, 09:23 AM
Aha!

I think they are just worried about my paladin's charging smite.

Yuki Akuma
2010-03-09, 09:31 AM
Aha!

I think they are just worried about my paladin's charging smite.

Paladin charging smite with lance and Spirited Charge or GTFO. :smallwink:

JediSoth
2010-03-09, 11:15 AM
Oh, also it expanded to fill its total volume no matter what. Hallways exploded with fire at both ends a lot.


The math kind of sucked, but the results were always AWESOME! Especially when the PCs failed on their math. :smallamused:

Thalnawr
2010-03-09, 11:36 AM
Calculating bounce angles for Lightning Bolts was always fun too...

Zeta Kai
2010-03-09, 11:59 AM
Calculating bounce angles for Lightning Bolts was always fun too...

Fun, but time consuming, & it always made me wonder what the walls were made off that made them electrically reflective. That would be valuable stuff, if you could get your hands on a lot of it cheap.