House rules you didn't know were house rules

[Z3ro]

So I was just thinking about all the different house rules people use to change up games they like, and I realized that for the longest time my group had several house rules that we all thought were part of the core rules. I'm sure this has happened to most people at some point. Care to share?

The big ones for my group were:

1) Fighter bonus feats could be any feat; no special list for fighters. This obviously made fighters great for dipping, but also made them slightly more viable options especially with other subsystems (ToB, Incarnum).

2) Any spellcaster taking damage in combat (from any source) had to make a concentration check to cast a spell in that round, equal to 10+spell level+damage taken. Sort of a hold over from 2nd ed, made caster have to be a little more careful in combat.

[Calintares]

It took a long time for me to get what is supposed to happen on a natural one. I used to dread seeing that number, because in combat it would mean I'm about to kill myself. More party deaths came from critical misses than from enemies.

[CTrees]

Anything special happening on a twenty on a critical confirmation roll.

Critical fumble rules, just in general.

[Herabec]

Three natural twenties on an attack roll equals instant death, no saving throw.

[hydroplatypus]

In both the game I DM and the game I am a player nat 20s and nat 1s are hilarious. nat 1s morso, as we seem to have really bad d20s and get them more often.

[ImperatorK]

1) Fighter bonus feats could be any feat; no special list for fighters. This obviously made fighters great for dipping, but also made them slightly more viable options especially with other subsystems (ToB, Incarnum).
How did this work out for your group? Any examples from your games? It's an interesting idea.

[Z3ro]

How did this work out for your group? Any examples from your games? It's an interesting idea.

There were two main results: The most common one was that just about every character (especially spellcasters) took a level or two of fighter for the bonus feats. The other was a couple excellent fighters using ToB and Incarnum to basically make fighters into something they're normally not (especially Incarnum; that fighter was awesome).

[MeeposFire]

There were two main results: The most common one was that just about every character (especially spellcasters) took a level or two of fighter for the bonus feats. The other was a couple excellent fighters using ToB and Incarnum to basically make fighters into something they're normally not (especially Incarnum; that fighter was awesome).

I can see incarnum feats helping but ToB feats are largely fighter bonus feat friendly already (unless I am forgetting some important feat).

[Z3ro]

I can see incarnum feats helping but ToB feats are largely fighter bonus feat friendly already (unless I am forgetting some important feat).

I'll be honest I don't remember too closely what he did, just that he had used a bunch of bonus feats to take a bunch of maneuvers and stances as a kind of "warblade light".

[MeeposFire]

I'll be honest I don't remember too closely what he did, just that he had used a bunch of bonus feats to take a bunch of maneuvers and stances as a kind of "warblade light".

I believe those feats are already fighter bonus feats but the incarnum feats would be awesome!

[ImperatorK]

I'll be honest I don't remember too closely what he did, just that he had used a bunch of bonus feats to take a bunch of maneuvers and stances as a kind of "warblade light".
Martial Study is a fighter bonus feat but it can be taken only 3 times, afaik. Martial Stance also is a fighter bonus feat and can be taken as long as there are stances that you can take.

[Lateral]

Monks being proficient with their own unarmed strikes. :smallsigh:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Provoking an AoO on a nat 1, no fumble tables.

[wuwuwu]

Monks being proficient with their own unarmed strikes. :smallsigh:

Aren't all characters proficient with their own natural weapons?

[Daremonai]

In Pathfinder, yes; in D&D 3.5, no. Monks aren't actually proficient with their own fists.

[ImperatorK]

Aren't all characters proficient with their own natural weapons?
Monk get Improved Unarmed Strike, which is sorta a proficiency feat. Or what you said.


In Pathfinder, yes; in D&D 3.5, no. Monks aren't actually proficient with their own fists.
Some quotes and page numbers please.

[MeeposFire]

Monks being proficient with their own unarmed strikes. :smallsigh:

Neither are totemists, dragon disciples, or most any class that uses natural attacks outside of the druid. It is a common "problem".

And no creatures are proficient with natural weapons by type and if you are humanoid (like most PCs) then you are proficient with simple weapons OR weapons by class. Since it says or instead of and monks lack proficiency with fists.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Some quotes and page numbers please.

Equipment chapter. Unarmed strikes are listed as simple weapons. Monks aren't proficient with all simple weapons, and don't say they're proficient with unarmed strikes.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

No death from massive damage. I still try to forget that one.

[JaronK]

To extend that, most types are always proficient with natural attacks, but humanoids specifically say that if they have a class, they use the class proficiencies instead of the racial ones. Monks don't list unarmed strikes anywhere in their proficiencies, and if you look carefully their class abilities never give them proficiency either.

So, it's only humanoid Monks that aren't proficient. Outsider Monks are (and are also proficient with martial weapons, due to their racial abilities).

JaronK

[Kenneth]

2) Any spellcaster taking damage in combat (from any source) had to make a concentration check to cast a spell in that round, equal to 10+spell level+damage taken. Sort of a hold over from 2nd ed, made caster have to be a little more careful in combat.

Uh.. I am a little confused. becuase for me when i look at the concentration skill it clearly says.. its teh 3.5 player's guide.. am I in the wrong edition here? in 2nd ed they never got a chance to keep the spell it was automatic failure.

DC 10+spell level+ damage dealt

Distraction Injury from any source during the casting of a spell.

[tyckspoon]

Uh.. I am a little confused. becuase for me when i look at the concentration skill it clearly says.. its teh 3.5 player's guide.. am I in the wrong edition here? in 2nd ed they never got a chance to keep the spell it was automatic failure.

DC 10+spell level+ damage dealt

Distraction Injury from any source during the casting of a spell.

The houserule bit would be taking any damage during the whole round. Normally, those Concentration checks are only called for if the caster takes damage during the actual casting of the spell, which generally means you have to use interrupt abilities or readied actions to do it. With the houserule, opponents can focus the caster and any successful hits will help screw up his cast, regardless of when he actually casts or what he casts.

Edit: Without that houserule the only damage that reliably can interrupt a caster is 'ongoing damage', which is both a pretty rare damage type (in Core, I think the only things that really do it are being on fire and Acid Arrow), which tends to produce a weak enough Concentration DC that it's not really worth doing.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Once a class skill, always a class skill for the purpose of maximum ranks AND costs.

Nat 1 critical failure and Nat 20 autosucces (depending on the circumstances critical succes) on everything, from skill checks to ability checks and obviously attack/saves. .... I still hate that rule:smallannoyed:

[ImperatorK]

To extend that, most types are always proficient with natural attacks, but humanoids specifically say that if they have a class, they use the class proficiencies instead of the racial ones. Monks don't list unarmed strikes anywhere in their proficiencies, and if you look carefully their class abilities never give them proficiency either.

So, it's only humanoid Monks that aren't proficient. Outsider Monks are (and are also proficient with martial weapons, due to their racial abilities).

JaronK
Monks get Improved Unarmed Strike (as I already said). Maybe RAW it's not a proficiency, but for me it is.

[Tr011]

No death from massive damage. I still try to forget that one.

I think the death from massive damage is a bad idea for PCs anyway. It powers spellcasters even more at higher levels.

@Dusk Eclipse: Click me. (http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2369920)

Is it a house rule, that you can draw a weapon as a free action when moving if you have BAB +1 or higher? Always played with that, but never saw that rule.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think the death from massive damage is a bad idea for PCs anyway. It powers spellcasters even more at higher levels.

@Dusk Eclipse: Click me. (http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2369920)

Is it a house rule, that you can draw a weapon as a free action when moving if you have BAB +1 or higher? Always played with that, but never saw that rule.

Curiously enough, that happened once... someone tried to intimidate an NP'C (probably me; but I don't remember the specifics) Nat 1 on the check, DM ruled the NPC laughed at the character...before stabbing him.

(Remember this is not auto-failure only; but critical failure)

And yes it is a rule.. can't remember where it is written... probably in the PH in the section dealing with movement

[Thurbane]

We always played that drawing a weapon provoked an AoO - we were quite surprised when we were looking something else up on the Actions In Combat table and discovered that, in fact, it didn't.

We also played (misread) that drawing an object from Heward's Handy Haversack was reduced to a free action.

[KillianHawkeye]

Is it a house rule, that you can draw a weapon as a free action when moving if you have BAB +1 or higher? Always played with that, but never saw that rule.

No, that's in the combat chapter (under Move Actions).

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.

[Zaq]

We use the fractional BAB/saves rules from Unearthed Arcana. It was only recently that I realized that even with fractional saves, you still get the +2 bumps to good saves with every new class you take. We had ruled that only your first class and your first PrC gave you the +2 bumps, and I thought we were being generous with the PrC bit. Turns out that you're supposed to get them whenever you dip. Go figure.

[BlueInc]

I realized that for the longest time my group had several house rules that we all thought were part of the core rules. I'm sure this has happened to most people at some point.

Oh god... until recently, 90% of the games I played in were houserules barely stitched together with 3.5. We didn't use grids, used homebrew races constantly, almost never awarded players money or magic objects... the list goes on and on.

[BlueInc]

I realized that for the longest time my group had several house rules that we all thought were part of the core rules. I'm sure this has happened to most people at some point.

Oh god... until recently, 90% of the games I played in were houserules barely stitched together with 3.5. We didn't use grids, used homebrew races constantly, almost never awarded players money or magic objects... the list goes on and on.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think the death from massive damage is a bad idea for PCs anyway. It powers spellcasters even more at higher levels.Well, I'll agree it's just another random chance for tanks to die for no real reason, but by the time it matters casters aren't getting hit anyway. The big thing is it's just another arbitrary way for the PCs to die, like the triple 20 houserule, or all of the awful fumble houserules. Encounters that are dangerous because the foes are (about) as skilled as you are interesting. Encounters that are dangerous because the oaf trying to hit you might get a lucky shot... I haven't seen it work.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Oh god... until recently, 90% of the games I played in were houserules barely stitched together with 3.5. We didn't use grids, used homebrew races constantly, almost never awarded players money or magic objects... the list goes on and on.
That's just bad DMing.

Homebrew ≠ House Rules

[Serpentine]

My very first DM ever was pretty bad with this. For example: Clerics don't wear armour, because they believe their deities will take care of them. Then... shouldn't they get some sort of faith-based armour bonus or something? :smallconfused:

[holywhippet]

One a former DM of mine didn't know, and had to implement during a game. This was a 2nd edition game and he had the party find some scrolls with divine spells on them. Thing is, we only had a druid in the party and in 2nd edition druids can't use scrolls. We had to house rule it in order to ensure the scrolls would be useable.

[BIGMamaSloth]

you can take a level of a prestige class, feat, etc. when you gain the pre-requisites. For instance if I wanted to enter a prestige class that need +4 BAB I could enter if the first level of that prestige class would raise me to that +4 BAB. I always liked that. It meant I could make a binder 5/ KoSS 5 :smallcool:

[Curmudgeon]

Full ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity.

This is another designer goof, akin to Monks lacking unarmed strike proficiency. The AoO for ranged attacks is listed in the Standard Actions section of the Combat chapter, where they break attacks into "Attack (melee)", "Attack (unarmed)" and "Attack (ranged)". In the Full-Round Actions section they just have one attack option, "Full attack", which they list as not provoking. (Apparently they were only thinking of melee attacks for some reason, and messed up ─ bigtime.) By RAW, standing in someone's face and firing your bow at them once provokes an AoO, but standing in someone's face and firing your bow at them repeatedly doesn't. :smallbiggrin: