[3.5] Most Common (Intentionally) Ignored Rules

[Thurbane]

Hey all,

The thread about overlooked variants and odds-and-ends thread got me thinking: what are the most commonly deliberately ignored rules in 3.X?

The rules that are RAW, but people chose to ignore for the sake of convenience or gameplay?

From what I see on the forums, here's a list to start with:


Multiclassing XP penalties/favored classes.
Paladins and Monks not being allowed to multiclass and then return to their initial class.
Encumbrance rules/tracking encumbrance accurately.
Tracking rations accurately.

(I should probably note my own group does abide by all of the above in our games).

Cheers - T

[Eldonauran]

Biggest one that I know of, even more so than the multiclass exp penalty, is that prestige classes are an optimal optional rule.


Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tighly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign.

[Silva Stormrage]

The rule that some magic weapons automatically glow like a torch often gets overlooked/ignored.

[Arael666]

I do actualy track emcumbrance and rations. If you don't, players tend to "forget" they can't carry all those weapons, and eating is a great part of roleplay in my opinion (since I like cooking, all my taverns/inns have a menu with lots of diferent dishes)

[SimonMoon6]

That adventures don't have to be hack-and-slash dungeons. :smalltongue:

[Felvion]

My guys act like they have eschew material almost everytime. That makes totally surprising when someone creates a character and mentions "i also have a bag for my spell components". They also take for granted that every spell has both somatic and verbal focus.

I've found out that lots of ppl consider summoning standard action as a result of which the summoned creature would appear in the same round it was called and it even had full round action!

I'm sure much more will come in my mind later but i have to state the most important rule that "some people i know" always forget: a fully grown adult that cant help himself from making jokes during a session and whenever the opportunity arises he makes references to drugs, sexual fetish, gay stuff, videogames and tv shows may never question the dm "why everyone has an awesome key role to your plot but i don't?" cause its common sense (and definately core) that the party may as well play without him in the future. Yeah.... I think its in the DMG somewhere.:smallamused:

[ddude987]

I don't see people remembering two abjuration effects near each other glow a bit, but that's not really a rule, more of an effect. One time it was imporant, and I remembered, but my character had no idea about arcane magic, so the party well into a trap.

[Gemini476]

Monk unarmed proficiency and the entirety of the drowning rules.

[Arael666]

I've found out that lots of ppl consider summoning standard action as a result of which the summoned creature would appear in the same round it was called and it even had full round action!

This! So much this! I had to show the quote on SRD to convince people that when a spell takes a full round action the efect will only take place at the begining of your next turn.

[Chronos]

A lot of groups ignore XP entirely, and just level up every so often when the DM thinks it's appropriate.

[Thiyr]

Biggest one that I know of, even more so than the multiclass exp penalty, is that prestige classes are an optimal rule.

Strangely, while I disagree with your intended reading of that passage (personally I read it more as "going into a PrC is purely optional" rather than "the existence of PrCs is optional"), your typo is oftentimes an accurate statement anyway. :smalltongue:

Regardless, at least in my group, alignment restrictions tend to be actively ignored unless they are very solidly tied to the classes abilities (I'm looking at you, Incarnate). We also often ignore the "you must have a +1 on your weapon before putting non-numerical enhancements on it" as well.

[ddude987]

I'm not sure about other groups, but my playgroup has always allowed enhancement bonuses to give extra skill points. In addition, not sure if this is the actual rule, but any permanent change to your Int (in a positive way) retcons skill points for all existing levels, as opposed to only getting the extra skill points at the level your Int went up and subsequent levels.

[Eldonauran]

Strangely, while I disagree with your intended reading of that passage (personally I read it more as "going into a PrC is purely optional" rather than "the existence of PrCs is optional"), your typo is oftentimes an accurate statement anyway. :smalltongue:

The irony of my typo does not escape me. :smallsmile:

However one choose to read it, the DM has total control over what, if any, prestige classes are available in his campaign. I choose to read that as "Assuming that you are able to enter a prestige class is ill-advised. Consult your DM."

[Particle_Man]

Cursed items rules (5% of magic objects), at least in campaigns I have been in.

[ddude987]

One I think most groups ignore, spot and listen checks to see anything even 5 feet in front of you. Also knowledge checks, as in without even 1 rank in knowledge nature you couldn't identify a wolf RAW.

[Chester]

A lot of groups ignore XP entirely, and just level up every so often when the DM thinks it's appropriate.

Yeah, my group plays this way.

Also, I have always ignored material spell components.

[Deophaun]

One I think most groups ignore, spot and listen checks to see anything even 5 feet in front of you.
Where is this? The Spot description says the exact opposite:

The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
If it's not intentionally hiding and not difficult to see, you don't need a Spot check.

[MesiDoomstalker]

That divine casters need to prominently display their holy symbol (or divine focus as applicable) to cast spells. Likewise, Verbal components needing to be in a strong clear voice. If no one says "I whisper the incantation for [spell] under my breath" without that one skill trick once a session, then the token wizard player is absent.

[ddude987]

Where is this? The Spot description says the exact opposite:

If it's not intentionally hiding and not difficult to see, you don't need a Spot check.

But there are still distance penalties.

[Soranar]

massive damage rule that says you must succeed a DC 15 fort save or die instantly if you incur 50 damage or more in one hit

[Jbr208]

One of the rules I tend to ignore most often is that craft (alchemy) requires the user to be a caster if he wishes to craft anything. To me that's always been kinda silly.

[Deophaun]

But there are still distance penalties.
If there is no Spot check, then there are no penalties.

[Eldonauran]

If there is no Spot check, then there are no penalties.

Exactly. The moon is visible because it is not trying to hide and it quite obvious. Seems legit.

[TuggyNE]

Exactly. The moon is visible because it is not trying to hide and it quite obvious. Seems legit.

"It's easy to Spot because it's easy to Spot"? The first RAW of Tautology Club is the first RAW of Tautology Club!

[Ortesk]

My group does away with exp and just levels when dm says we do...Makes crafting magic items confusing as all get out


Also i like to ignore skill by the class basis, basically unless its trained only you have it. The fighter who has a +1 spot at level 20 is kinda silly

Most players i've met ignore things like the fact we been wearing the same clothes the last 10 levels of dungeon grinding/sewage diving/spilling our blood and monster blood on us. Also i very rarely hear a player mention there bathing, yet we suffer no drawbacks to social interactions even though were the filthiest beings alive lol

[Theomniadept]

Well known fact, every DM does away with dumb skill checks. Like how using Listen to hear someone talking to you right up in your face is a DC 0, but is DC 10 to make out what they are saying. Or the fact that on a bright sunny day two commoners in a football field, one on the endzone and one on the 50 yard line, cannot see each other.

I mean the dysfunctional rules thread has literally everything DMs ignore but skill checks are the ones they ignore the most because talking is an inherent part of the game.

[Eurus]

Rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw against a (damaging) spell requires you to determine which four pieces of equipment are most likely to be affected, according to a provided list, then roll randomly among them and subject the rolled item to the spell's effect as well with a new saving throw of its own.

Never seen anyone actually use that one. It's amusing, but pointlessly complicated and hitting people in the wallet is generally considered anti-fun.

[madtinker]

Coins have weight and therefore count towards encumbrance, if encumbrance is used at all.

[Thurbane]

Rolling a natural 1 on a saving throw against a (damaging) spell requires you to determine which four pieces of equipment are most likely to be affected, according to a provided list, then roll randomly among them and subject the rolled item to the spell's effect as well with a new saving throw of its own.

Never seen anyone actually use that one. It's amusing, but pointlessly complicated and hitting people in the wallet is generally considered anti-fun.
Yeah, that's a good one. It harkens back to the terrible days of AD&D when every item you wore or carried had to roll a save every time you got caught in a damaging area effect.

Fun times. Not.

Coins have weight and therefore count towards encumbrance, if encumbrance is used at all.
Another excellent example.

Maybe my group are just pedants, but we do actually enforce this one.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Most players i've met ignore things like the fact we been wearing the same clothes the last 10 levels of dungeon grinding/sewage diving/spilling our blood and monster blood on us. Also i very rarely hear a player mention there bathing, yet we suffer no drawbacks to social interactions even though were the filthiest beings alive lol

One of the many joys of Prestidigitation.

Actually, speaking of which, one I learned recently - Prestidigitation makes one immune to lava damage. (To break that one down: Prestidigitation can dampen an object (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707), granting it Fire Resistance 2. And any level of Fire Resistance grants immunity to lava damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#lavaEffects). Therefore, Prestidigitation can be used to provide immunity to lava damage.)

[Silva Stormrage]

One of the many joys of Prestidigitation.

Actually, speaking of which, one I learned recently - Prestidigitation makes one immune to lava damage. (To break that one down: Prestidigitation can dampen an object (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707), granting it Fire Resistance 2. And any level of Fire Resistance grants immunity to lava damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#lavaEffects). Therefore, Prestidigitation can be used to provide immunity to lava damage.)

Not quite. Presdigation grants an OBJECT fire resistance 2. Even if you are wearing the object you don't get it's fire resistance.

So it makes an object immune to lava. Still probably an ignored rule :smalltongue:

[Hytheter]

One of the many joys of Prestidigitation.

Actually, speaking of which, one I learned recently - Prestidigitation makes one immune to lava damage. (To break that one down: Prestidigitation can dampen an object (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707), granting it Fire Resistance 2. And any level of Fire Resistance grants immunity to lava damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#lavaEffects). Therefore, Prestidigitation can be used to provide immunity to lava damage.)

The fact that even the slightest resistance to fire can completely negate Lava strikes me as a little ridiculous.

[georgie_leech]

The fact that even the slightest resistance to fire can completely negate Lava strikes me as a little ridiculous.

Considering we've almost reached the end of the 4th thread on ridiculous/non-functioning rules, it's not the only thing that could do that.

[Lightlawbliss]

One of the many joys of Prestidigitation.

Actually, speaking of which, one I learned recently - Prestidigitation makes one immune to lava damage. (To break that one down: Prestidigitation can dampen an object (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707), granting it Fire Resistance 2. And any level of Fire Resistance grants immunity to lava damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#lavaEffects). Therefore, Prestidigitation can be used to provide immunity to lava damage.)

um, where do you see that making something damp gives fire resistance?

[Karnith]

um, where do you see that making something damp gives fire resistance?
Right here: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707)

Dampen: You leave an object damp to the touch for 1 hour. Damp objects have fire resistance 2 while the effect lasts.(Emphasis mine)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The fact that even the slightest resistance to fire can completely negate Lava strikes me as a little ridiculous.

Yeah, pretty much. Often ignored, perhaps unintentionally, in service to drama (or possibly verisimilitude).




um, where do you see that making something damp gives fire resistance?

See that first link in my post which you quoted? Click it, then read the section under Dampen, paying particular attention to the second sentence.

Edit: Swordsaged

[Calimehter]

The rules that say every settlement has at least 'X' gp worth of any given item is pretty much universally ignored in certain circumstances.

I can say that with some certainty, since every campaign setting I've ever heard of does *not* feature settlements that have been reduced to singularities by having infinite amounts of clubs and quarterstaves located within the finite area of the settlement.

:smallbiggrin:

[Silva Stormrage]

The rules that say every settlement has at least 'X' gp worth of any given item is pretty much universally ignored in certain circumstances.

I can say that with some certainty, since every campaign setting I've ever heard of does *not* feature settlements that have been reduced to singularities by having infinite amounts of clubs and quarterstaves located within the finite area of the settlement.

:smallbiggrin:

Okay there is a difference between ignored rule and ignoring infinite club singularities :smalltongue: Though I think most groups probably ignore the settlements have at least X gp anyway judging by the amount of magic mart type campaigns I have seen XD

[Eldonauran]

"It's easy to Spot because it's easy to Spot"? The first RAW of Tautology Club is the first RAW of Tautology Club!

Negative. The moon is easy to spot because it is neither a creature, nor attempting to hide itself. It is also neither an attempt to read lips or listed under the epic uses of Spot.

Using your words, "It's easy to Spot because it's easy to Spot". It is easy to spot because you don't use the Spot skill to perceive it.

[lsfreak]

Another excellent example.

Maybe my group are just pedants, but we do actually enforce this one.

I generally try and enforce it, depending on the campaign, but I also consider that 50 coins/pound is ridiculous (trade coins were usually 100-130/pound, everyday coinage was often 400-600/pound) and place a great deal of weight on favors or contracts over exchange of coins.

I've found age categories are largely ignored, unless someone's specifically trying to up the power of their caster.

Pretty sure community wealth, and that any item under that is assumed to be available, is often ignored, leading to forumside problems when people point out that scribed into the rules is the existence of magicmarts. The same games tend to ignore the existence of the rules in MIC about stacking the basic +Str, +save, +AC etc items at no additional cost. On the other hand, while perhaps not strictly a rule, I've found it often assumed that items are available immediately. When strictly buying it's not technically an ignored rule, but when you want to upgrade your +1 weapon with Collision, it doesn't take the 16 days it's supposed to. It just happens.

The rules about the number of people per level in a given community are resoundingly ignored except by the most careful of DMs. Off the top of my head, the only times I've ever even seen them referenced here have something to do with Tippy.

[Techwarrior]

Errata made mounted combat useless to a Scout. I haven't seen a single group use it, although they've all used the other portion of that errata by giving Scout's Disable Device. Poor Scout. :smallfrown:

[Rubik]

One I think most groups ignore, spot and listen checks to see anything even 5 feet in front of you. Also knowledge checks, as in without even 1 rank in knowledge nature you couldn't identify a wolf RAW.I assume a cooked wolf is okay, then?

[Flickerdart]

"It's easy to Spot because it's easy to Spot"? The first RAW of Tautology Club is the first RAW of Tautology Club!
Hey, it worked for D&D Next.

[Alent]

You hear tales semi-frequently of DMs ignoring prepared caster mechanics and treating them as spontaneous casters. That probably counts as an often ignored rule.

Druids often don't get grilled about how they know of their wildshape forms.

Also, Re: Abjuration lines. My previous DM was really specific about making sure that if we made both spot check and knowledge check that we knew that abjuration fields mixed like that. Once I get my campaign finished and we start with him as a player, I'm curious to see if his character will check for such things.

[Jergmo]

One I think most groups ignore, spot and listen checks to see anything even 5 feet in front of you. Also knowledge checks, as in without even 1 rank in knowledge nature you couldn't identify a wolf RAW.

You can always take 10 on skill checks when you aren't threatened. That seems to be what's at play.

[Brookshw]

The fact that even the slightest resistance to fire can completely negate Lava strikes me as a little ridiculous.

Why, yes, yes it is.

>.>

<.<

/open window, chuck it out.

[Raezeman]

creatures being flat footed in the first round of combat before they had their turn.

[Invader]

One of the rules I tend to ignore most often is that craft (alchemy) requires the user to be a caster if he wishes to craft anything. To me that's always been kinda silly.

Because casters don't ever get anything nice.

[Forrestfire]

creatures being flat footed in the first round of combat before they had their turn.

:smallfrown: Those poor rogues...

[Raezeman]

:smallfrown: Those poor rogues...

there are still surprise rounds, flanking, hiding,... I think that the high amount of immunity to sneak attack things are more of a bad thing for rogues

[avr]

By the rules Ride By Attack simply doesn't work. This gets intentionally ignored every time IME.

[Vhaidara]

creatures being flat footed in the first round of combat before they had their turn.

People ignore that? Then what's the point of initiative (prior to the game becoming rocket tag)?

For my group, usually things like Alignment restrictions, stupid entry feat taxes (any time Toughness, Endurance, a +2 save feat, or a +2 to 2 skills feat show up, it's gone), and most racial requirements for prestiges.

[Flickerdart]

By the rules Ride By Attack simply doesn't work. This gets intentionally ignored every time IME.
Not true. There are a number of vectors where fulfilling the conditions of a charge (moving to the nearest square you can attack the enemy from) allows you to move past them. Think of a joust - the two riders are slightly off-set from one another (in laterally adjacent squares) precisely so that their horses do not run into one another. Using it with a reach weapon further increases the acceptable vectors for a Ride-by Attack, as does playing on hexes instead of a grid.

But yes, by RAW you can't just run at a target from any which way and stick them with your spear.

[Gnoman]

That's not the flaw. By RAW, you and your mount operate on different initiative counts. The mount is doing the moving, while you are doing the attacking. Thus, you can't use Ride-by-attack to charge pass an enemy while striking with a lance, because wither you don't get an attack until movement is over, or your mount can't move until you're done attacking.

[Deophaun]

People ignore that? Then what's the point of initiative (prior to the game becoming rocket tag)?What's the point in being able to take position and act before your enemy?

[Defiled Cross]

When I DM, I'm more interested in the growth of the story, not the specific mechanics that turn seamless play tedious.

So naturally, I'm cool with my adventurers being able to swing heavy blades without having eaten in two weeks.

:smallcool:

[Forrestfire]

What's the point in being able to take position and act before your enemy?

Honestly, if we're at the pre-rocket tag levels and initiative got nerfed like that, I'd rather go after my enemy, because it makes them come to me instead of the other way around.

[Deophaun]

Honestly, if we're at the pre-rocket tag levels and initiative got nerfed like that, I'd rather go after my enemy, because it makes them come to me instead of the other way around.
How does it make them come to you? Is there a rule that the first group to go first must close distance that I've missed? Can't they get to cover, organize a phalanx, pepper you with arrows, throw down any kind of battlefield control, or do other things besides charge mindlessly into melee range?

[Rubik]

How does it make them come to you? Is there a rule that the first group to go first must close distance that I've missed? Can't they get to cover, organize a phalanx, pepper you with arrows, throw down any kind of battlefield control, or do other things besides charge mindlessly into melee range?Most melee characters do charge mindlessly into melee range, since that's the only thing they can do.

Not being flat-footed in the surprise round means that you're just as happy going last, since there's no penalty for not going first and plenty of reason to sit there and do nothing, as (sans pounce) your enemies will only pull off a single attack, whereas you'll get a full attack on them on your next turn.

[Flickerdart]

By RAW, you and your mount operate on different initiative counts.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat

Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.

[Deophaun]

Most melee characters do charge mindlessly into melee range, since that's the only thing they can do.
What games do you play? If we're not in rocket-tag mode (which would be where uberchargers would charge-first-ask-questions-later), most melee characters I've played with use their actions to get into advantageous positions to establish early flanks, bottleneck the enemy, and, if they have reach, force the enemy to provoke. This is much harder to do if you're going second.

[Venger]

I'm not sure about other groups, but my playgroup has always allowed enhancement bonuses to give extra skill points. In addition, not sure if this is the actual rule, but any permanent change to your Int (in a positive way) retcons skill points for all existing levels, as opposed to only getting the extra skill points at the level your Int went up and subsequent levels.

Int and skill points don't, RAW work that way.

The time involved to don/remove armor
tracking exactly how much everyone sleeps to make sure it's 8 hours
encumbrance
walking/forced march/ hustle/ all that junk about walking/nonlethal dmg etc
animal companions are not familiars

I also don't track the weight of money in the game. what reason is there to do that? at mid-high levels, the sums you get are so ludicrous they'd weigh a lot anyway, but at that point, you all have at least bag of holding 1s, so the point is moot anyway.

[Eldonauran]

What games do you play? If we're not in rocket-tag mode (which would be where uberchargers would charge-first-ask-questions-later), most melee characters I've played with use their actions to get into advantageous positions to establish early flanks, bottleneck the enemy, and, if they have reach, force the enemy to provoke. This is much harder to do if you're going second.

I know what kind of game I'm playing. Your kind of game. :smallamused:

It is amazing how often simple tactics are overlooked in combat scenarios.

[Slipperychicken]

Likewise, Verbal components needing to be in a strong clear voice. If no one says "I whisper the incantation for [spell] under my breath" without that one skill trick once a session, then the token wizard player is absent.

My groups tend to ignore somatic, verbal, and material components. Like they think you can just cast Silent Image in the open and no-one would know who cast it.

[Rubik]

My groups tend to ignore somatic, verbal, and material components. Like they think you can just cast Silent Image in the open and no-one would know who cast it.That's a psion.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

That's a psion.

Or a Bard with Disguise Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#disguiseSpell).

[Endarire]

Alternatively, you can ready an action to, say, charge a foe (or partial charge him) so you preempt his advance.

[The Viscount]

A big one is tracking costs for and numbers of nonmagical ammunition, and in this case I think it's rightfully ignored.

[Dawgmoah]

This! So much this! I had to show the quote on SRD to convince people that when a spell takes a full round action the efect will only take place at the begining of your next turn.

I must admit to being burned by that too when I first started with 3.5. I find even experienced players will "forget" things for convenience sake.

Amusingly, I was hosting a virtual game once and said I had to leave the room for a minute to take care of something. While I was gone the newer players were asking the older players about tricks and rules they like to exploit and if I would catch them or not. What they didn't know I just walked about ten feet to get a drink...

[Zombulian]

The rule that some magic weapons automatically glow like a torch often gets overlooked/ignored.

I wasn't even aware of that rule until recently, that's how overlooked it is.

[Deophaun]

Here's one I find frequently: You can't ready an action outside of initiative. Generally attempted when someone is opening a door, someone will ready an action to charge/loose an arrow/cast a spell at whatever is on the other side as soon as the door opens.

[Slipperychicken]

A big one is tracking costs for and numbers of nonmagical ammunition, and in this case I think it's rightfully ignored.

It isn't that hard to track. I've played a ranged character with 8 distinct ammo types for about 4 levels now, and I haven't had any problems. Just remember to mark them off each time you shoot.

[Quorothorn]

One of the rules I tend to ignore most often is that craft (alchemy) requires the user to be a caster if he wishes to craft anything. To me that's always been kinda silly.

I definitely ignore this one, though as it turns out the only PCs and important NPCs with ranks in it so far are casters anyway. Eh.


This! So much this! I had to show the quote on SRD to convince people that when a spell takes a full round action the efect will only take place at the begining of your next turn.

I had forgotten about that rule myself for some time, but fortunately remembered it in time to tell the Druid player well in advance of the first time she cast a SNA.


Maybe my group are just pedants, but we do actually enforce this one.

Not just you--it's the same in my group. I try to keep track of encumbrance and food/water supplies as much as possible.

[MesiDoomstalker]

What about rules that DM's make a point of mentioning that you should be following but never actually bothers to check? My group always runs encumbrance (its mentioned at least a dozen times during character creation and once a session onwards), but the DM, whoever it is, never bothers to check if we are staying within weight limitations, like for my Raptoran staying below Light Load.

Does anyone else have this issue? Where normally ignored rules are 'followed' but no one pays attention anyways?

[Thurbane]

In regards to encumbrance, tracking rations and ammo etc. in our group the DM usually trusts the players to be honest, and accurately track their own characters.

[Harrow]

In my group, not only are armor on/off times ignored, taking off armor is ignored completely. Everyone just sleeps in their armor and has their primary weapon drawn and, if necessary, loaded at all times. Especially in their sleep.

Players loosely follow encumbrance, but the DM never bothers to check it, and besides, most loot is left unclaimed, leaving it either with the familiar or, if questioned about it, being held by a character whose player isn't at the current session (i.e. 'offscreen' until needed).

The only time encumbrance was a big deal was when the DM dropped something like 10,000 copper on us and was skeptical as to whether or not we could actually carry all of it. Using the same random loot table, we later got siege equipment including a number of ballistae and catapults. The DM wanted to check everyone's encumbrance to see if we could take them, but we all just decided it was easier to leave them behind.

We have tracked sleep pretty closely, but never food nor drink. I imagine that will change in our upcoming games, which seem to take place in an It's Hot Outside-styled wasteland.


Verbal components needing to be in a strong clear voice. If no one says "I whisper the incantation for [spell] under my breath" without that one skill trick once a session, then the token wizard player is absent.

The game designers actually forgot that one from time to time. There's at least one spell, Sonic Weapon, where the fluff text states you whisper the verbal component.


The rule that some magic weapons automatically glow like a torch often gets overlooked/ignored.

Would someone mind telling me where this rule is? I know I've seen it before, but the last time I tried to reference it (I was a human in a dark dungeon without a torch and was looking for an out) I couldn't find it.

[Zombulian]

In regards to encumbrance, tracking rations and ammo etc. in our group the DM usually trusts the players to be honest, and accurately track their own characters.


What about rules that DM's make a point of mentioning that you should be following but never actually bothers to check? My group always runs encumbrance (its mentioned at least a dozen times during character creation and once a session onwards), but the DM, whoever it is, never bothers to check if we are staying within weight limitations, like for my Raptoran staying below Light Load.

Does anyone else have this issue? Where normally ignored rules are 'followed' but no one pays attention anyways?

Generally how stuff works in my group as well. Everyone is told to keep no more than a light load on your person unless you have a bag of holding. I personally keep to the rule, but no one ever checks.

[Deophaun]

Generally how stuff works in my group as well. Everyone is told to keep no more than a light load on your person unless you have a bag of holding. I personally keep to the rule, but no one ever checks.
My groups tend to be that way to, except bags of holding are apparently house ruled to have infinite capacity.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Generally how stuff works in my group as well. Everyone is told to keep no more than a light load on your person unless you have a bag of holding. I personally keep to the rule, but no one ever checks.
I make sure I stay under, but I also spent nearly all my cash on a Haversack to put about 1/3 of my load into there. The other 2/3rds are armor and weapon. I bought a bunch of trail rations, like 20. At the pace we normally level, the amount of gold we get quickly outpaces the need to care about the cost of buying more rations. Eventually, someone buys an everlasting trail ration or something and the DM stops saying "tick off another ration."

Makes me wonder why the second we get free infini-food and extradimensional space we stop keeping track that we ever kept track to begin with. It almost always happens, one or the other, within the first 4 sessions.

[Tommy2255]

Has nobody mentioned that thing where losing any of the prerequisites to a prestige class makes you lose all the abilities from it? You know, that rule that makes a whole set of prestige classes not work at all ever? Although it can be important to enforce selectively, so I guess it's not entirely ignored.

[Harrow]

Has nobody mentioned that thing where losing any of the prerequisites to a prestige class makes you lose all the abilities from it? You know, that rule that makes a whole set of prestige classes not work at all ever? Although it can be important to enforce selectively, so I guess it's not entirely ignored.

It can be a very silly rule. Got hit with Baleful Polymorph? Say goodbye to all those Shadowcraft Mage benefits...

[Silentone98]

Most this is already said but.

My parties tend to ignore food consumption over long distances, or even short ones. I swear they'd forget to even feed themselves if I didn't say something about it.
In fact, I stress that I'd be enforcing this and it gets outright ignored unless I have a calendar going for the campaign and keep track of what they should be going threw myself. This annoys me to no end.

along this line, they also ignore arrow use/recovery rules(which I don't mind for regular arrows, but magical ones? NOT AN OPTION!)

Sleep and fatigue and the passing of time is all glossed over by all of us, and highly inaccurate, but this I don't mind.

Players like to be creative, or invent their own rules.... such as ingesting a vial of alchemists fire. How do I handle this? My players are literally asking for a lvl 1 insta kill against any sleeping opponent with no grapple checks even(bit easier than a coup de grace in my opinion). So at this point I either let It happen or say something like "only part gets in and the rest spews all over, they take a tiny bit of extra damage along with the normal, roll initiative!" and then be argued at for hours for something that was completely legitimate call on my part...
SOOOO this sums up to "DM has the last call" as the most often overlooked rule.

[Slipperychicken]

In my group, not only are armor on/off times ignored, taking off armor is ignored completely. Everyone just sleeps in their armor and has their primary weapon drawn and, if necessary, loaded at all times. Especially in their sleep.


My groups generally get to a nighttime ambush, then say something like "no you weren't sleeping in your armor you damn murderhobo", vaguely recalling that people who sleep in their armor get fatigued the next day.

[Silentone98]

My groups generally get to a nighttime ambush, then say something like "no you weren't sleeping in your armor you damn murderhobo", vaguely recalling that people who sleep in their armor get fatigued the next day.

surprisingly one of the rules my parties tend to respect.

[lunar2]

My guys act like they have eschew material almost everytime. That makes totally surprising when someone creates a character and mentions "i also have a bag for my spell components". They also take for granted that every spell has both somatic and verbal focus.

I've found out that lots of ppl consider summoning standard action as a result of which the summoned creature would appear in the same round it was called and it even had full round action!

I'm sure much more will come in my mind later but i have to state the most important rule that "some people i know" always forget: a fully grown adult that cant help himself from making jokes during a session and whenever the opportunity arises he makes references to drugs, sexual fetish, gay stuff, videogames and tv shows may never question the dm "why everyone has an awesome key role to your plot but i don't?" cause its common sense (and definately core) that the party may as well play without him in the future. Yeah.... I think its in the DMG somewhere.:smallamused:

Gay stuff? that's... oddly specific. you don't penalize straight stuff, too?


Has nobody mentioned that thing where losing any of the prerequisites to a prestige class makes you lose all the abilities from it? You know, that rule that makes a whole set of prestige classes not work at all ever? Although it can be important to enforce selectively, so I guess it's not entirely ignored.

this is actually a book specific (complete warrior and book of exalted deeds) rule. the primary DMG rule is that you need prerequisites to take the first level in a prestige class. beyond that, anything goes.

[Sith_Happens]

Has nobody mentioned that thing where losing any of the prerequisites to a prestige class makes you lose all the abilities from it? You know, that rule that makes a whole set of prestige classes not work at all ever? Although it can be important to enforce selectively, so I guess it's not entirely ignored.

There's a strong if convoluted argument that that rule only applies to the classes in the books that it itself appears in (i.e.- CA and CW), but let's not derail this thread with that.


"no you weren't sleeping in your armor you damn murderhobo"

Unless it's light armor, or you spent 500 gp to make it sleepable-in.

[Slipperychicken]

Unless it's light armor, or you spent 500 gp to make it sleepable-in.

Also if you have the Endurance feat. I was going to throw those exceptions in, but I felt like I might as well not bother, since so few of the players I've seen actually use those options.

[Flickerdart]

The games I'm in tend to be about heroes performing heroic deeds. The bits of 3.5 that attempt to make it into dirt farming simulator fall by the wayside: nobody wants to bother with rations, arrows, and so forth, because "and then we went to the market and bought a sack of waffles" is considered a waste of time by everyone involved.

[Deophaun]

My players are literally asking for a lvl 1 insta kill against any sleeping opponent with no grapple checks even(bit easier than a coup de grace in my opinion).
A teeny-tiny bit easier than a CDG, but I'll agree it's nonsense. It's not going to burn inside a body (the fire can be smothered without extraordinary means), but it will probably ignite as soon as the lid is removed. So either it will do nothing, or the target will awake as burning liquid falls on him (CDG with alchemist fire!). Either way, use a blade like a normal person.

[icefractal]

However, it's not like the alchemists's fire thing is really stronger than a normal CdG. I mean, carry around a pick - it's cheaper than even a single alchemist's fire, and even at first level you can do something like 4d6+16 with it, forcing a DC 40 Fortitude save. That's just death.

Heck, even a Light Pick (for concealability) would be 4d4+12, so DC 32 - still likely to be deadly. And again, can be much higher if you're a warrior type.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A teeny-tiny bit easier than a CDG, but I'll agree it's nonsense. It's not going to burn inside a body (the fire can be smothered without extraordinary means), but it will probably ignite as soon as the lid is removed. So either it will do nothing, or the target will awake as burning liquid falls on him (CDG with alchemist fire!). Either way, use a blade like a normal person.

I had a character who, due to an excess of funds and down time, carried a special CDG-Scythe in his Handy Haversack. Collision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#collision) and I forget what else we put on it.

[Venger]

The games I'm in tend to be about heroes performing heroic deeds. The bits of 3.5 that attempt to make it into dirt farming simulator fall by the wayside: nobody wants to bother with rations, arrows, and so forth, because "and then we went to the market and bought a sack of waffles" is considered a waste of time by everyone involved.

Same here.


I had a character who, due to an excess of funds and down time, carried a special CDG-Scythe in his Handy Haversack. Collision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#collision) and I forget what else we put on it.

Maiming?

I love that enhancement on a scythe.

[Jon_Dahl]

I ignore the "nonlethal damage can't kill you" rule and my players agree with me 100%.

If you want to take someone as a prisoner, you can just can't sock in the jaw for ten minutes straight. Depending on your Strength, the target would sleep for hours. In my game, Nonlethal damage is deducted from your total hit points and HP -10 means that you're dead. There is no scenario in which a gang of youth criminals beats a granny but she doesn't die because it's nonlethal.

The only exception is regeneration. In those cases you can go below -10 HP with nonlethal damage.

This rule has enhanced my game because taking prisoners actually requires skill and planning, and not just banging away with your fists carefreely.

[Sith_Happens]

I ignore the "nonlethal damage can't kill you" rule and my players agree with me 100%.

If you want to take someone as a prisoner, you can just can't sock in the jaw for ten minutes straight. Depending on your Strength, the target would sleep for hours. In my game, Nonlethal damage is deducted from your total hit points and HP -10 means that you're dead. There is no scenario in which a gang of youth criminals beats a granny but she doesn't die because it's nonlethal.

The only exception is regeneration. In those cases you can go below -10 HP with nonlethal damage.

This rule has enhanced my game because taking prisoners actually requires skill and planning, and not just banging away with your fists carefreely.

You realize it's called "nonlethal" damage, right? If you want to say it doesn't exist anymore then more power to you, just don't pretend that that's not what you did.

[Deophaun]

This rule has enhanced my game because taking prisoners actually requires skill and planning...
...or a caster. Skill and planning is for mundanes.

[TuggyNE]

I ignore the "nonlethal damage can't kill you" rule and my players agree with me 100%.

If you want to take someone as a prisoner, you can just can't sock in the jaw for ten minutes straight. Depending on your Strength, the target would sleep for hours. In my game, Nonlethal damage is deducted from your total hit points and HP -10 means that you're dead. There is no scenario in which a gang of youth criminals beats a granny but she doesn't die because it's nonlethal.

The only exception is regeneration. In those cases you can go below -10 HP with nonlethal damage.

This rule has enhanced my game because taking prisoners actually requires skill and planning, and not just banging away with your fists carefreely.

Huh. Making it possible, if more difficult, to die from nonlethal damage or attempted nonlethal attacks is one thing; I'm not sure I'd do that, but it's not exactly stupid so much as unfortunate from a gamist perspective. One way to do that is to make critical hits do their extra damage as lethal; another way is to make nonlethal turn into lethal if the target has more nonlethal damage than (normal maximum/current) HP.

Completely removing any distinction between lethal and nonlethal, on the other hand, seems rather thoroughly unjustified and quite silly. People really can be knocked unconscious-but-relatively-stable by physical trauma, and doing so deliberately to capture an otherwise stubborn foe is a common enough trope to be worth including.

[Jon_Dahl]

Huh. Making it possible, if more difficult, to die from nonlethal damage or attempted nonlethal attacks is one thing; I'm not sure I'd do that, but it's not exactly stupid so much as unfortunate from a gamist perspective. One way to do that is to make critical hits do their extra damage as lethal; another way is to make nonlethal turn into lethal if the target has more nonlethal damage than (normal maximum/current) HP.

Completely removing any distinction between lethal and nonlethal, on the other hand, seems rather thoroughly unjustified and quite silly. People really can be knocked unconscious-but-relatively-stable by physical trauma, and doing so deliberately to capture an otherwise stubborn foe is a common enough trope to be worth including.

Fair enough, but whenever I ask this from my players: "Should we include the rule that you can beat a granny one hour straight and she'll be just fine later on?", the answer is usually (after a short pause to think) unanimous "No". I have never seen anyone to even try to contest this rule change in my games.

[Sith_Happens]

Fair enough, but whenever I ask this from my players: "Should we include the rule that you can beat a granny one hour straight and she'll be just fine later on?", the answer is usually (after a short pause to think) unanimous "No". I have never seen anyone to even try to contest this rule change in my games.

Obviously none of your players has ever wanted to roll a Paladin, or else they would have been obliged to stop this blatant attempt at exposing countless grannies to lethal harm.

[Jon_Dahl]

Obviously none of your players has ever wanted to roll a Paladin, or else they would have been obliged to stop this blatant attempt at exposing countless grannies to lethal harm.

http://kairaus.net/img/image/180.gif

[georgie_leech]

Fair enough, but whenever I ask this from my players: "Should we include the rule that you can beat a granny one hour straight and she'll be just fine later on?", the answer is usually (after a short pause to think) unanimous "No". I have never seen anyone to even try to contest this rule change in my games.

You might consider borrowing from Shadowrun and having Nonlethal "overflow" into Lethal for anything without Regeneration, if Nonlethal exceeds the hp total of whatever it is.

...Actually, now that I think about it, how does Regeneration on things like Trolls work with this change?

[TuggyNE]

Fair enough, but whenever I ask this from my players: "Should we include the rule that you can beat a granny one hour straight and she'll be just fine later on?", the answer is usually (after a short pause to think) unanimous "No". I have never seen anyone to even try to contest this rule change in my games.

Well, while your rule does indeed prevent that odd case, so do both of my suggested alternatives, and they do so without the unfortunate inability to ever knock anyone out at all. So merely asking that one question is not enough to properly judge if the rule is necessary or desirable: it is merely preferable to the default.

[hemming]

I keep the restrictions on scrolls and staffs - but I allow any PC class to use a wand as a point and shoot weapon w/ no check

[Silentone98]

Tugg is right- and it's pretty obvious... kudos for addressing that oft-overlooked issue, because you are certainly right that nonlethal damage as normal is,... weird to say the least.

But as Tugg mentioned, you should consider an alternative; rather than take away the ability to do something that you most certainly should be able to do(knockouts), just to take away a different aspect of you shouldn't be able to do(have someone survive a ruthless beating for hours on end, and come out seemingly untouched some hours/days later)

[Jon_Dahl]

Those alternatives are great but too complicated. I just tell my players this:

"Substract ALL damage from your hp. When you're at negative hp, you're out. When you're at -10 hp, you die. Hp 0 is kind of quirky, let's handle that separately when it comes up. Remember that nonlethal damage heals differently than lethal damage. That's the only difference.... Well, hp 0 is different too, but let's not get into that.
And before I forget: If someone makes a troll, please tell me. Things work differently with regeneration."
Everyone nods and understands. No confusion.

[Jgosse]

I Ignore the half Str on off hand Atks rule at no point have I ever enforced that rule.

[Person_Man]

Ride and Handle Animal rules, and animal intelligence in general. Most players act as if their Animal Companion, Special Mount, and mounts in general are intelligent humanoids that respond telepathically to any command instantaneously. They're not. And even Familiars, which have non-animal Intelligence, start out at low levels with a child-like Intelligence of 6.

Also, I'd say that pre-4E D&D suffers from very poor "similationist" mechanics in general. There's a strong tendency to want to account for every detail that would happen in the "real" world, even when it's a massive hassle that players ignore or hate. I'm all for Craft and Profession Skills and adding flavor and depth to the game. I hate pointless book keeping and fiddly bonuses and penalties.

[Dawgmoah]

Ride and Handle Animal rules, and animal intelligence in general. Most players act as if their Animal Companion, Special Mount, and mounts in general are intelligent humanoids that respond telepathically to any command instantaneously. They're not.

And even Familiars, which have non-animal Intelligence, start out at low levels with a child-like Intelligence of 6.

Two nights ago a player was arguing with me that he should be able to ride a horse. No ranks in Ride mind you. We didn't sit there and spend lots of time on it but he just did not know how to ride properly. The young bard was unhappy when someone else led his horse.

Sounds like the usual fall out on this thread between DMs who try to simulate a sense of reality (where your hero can run out of arrows) compared to the abstraction crowd that is more into the high action and Legolas makes it through Lord of the Rings and all of the combat with three or so arrows in his quiver. Neither is wrong, just sometimes problems arise when players used to the other game style show up.

[ramrod]

I'm amazed that no one else has mentioned it, but having to pray/meditate at specific times of day for spells. Plus the additional baggage that means that you only get one allocation of spells in a given 24 hour period and even then only if you happen to not be too busy to stop doing something for an hour to meditate.

Castle under siege... Sorry guys my deity has told me that the supernatural network is down for maintenance and to try again in a few hours at dawn for that heal spell you need...

I like the flavour, but I'd rather go for a deity that wants me whooping ass as often as my corporeal body can dish it out.

[Deophaun]

Two nights ago a player was arguing with me that he should be able to ride a horse.
That shouldn't be an argument: either you're following RAW and he can, indeed ride a horse without training (and without a ride check):

Typical riding actions don’t require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem.
Or you aren't following RAW and you let your players know this rule up front.

So who was in the wrong here?

[holywhippet]

I've found out that lots of ppl consider summoning standard action as a result of which the summoned creature would appear in the same round it was called and it even had full round action!


I'm not entirely convinced about that though. The SRD says:

It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.

For D&D, specific overrides general, so IMO the spell specifically states the summoned monster will arrive in the same turn and can act.

[Eldonauran]

For D&D, specific overrides general, so IMO the spell specifically states the summoned monster will arrive in the same turn and can act.

The creature does arrive in and act in the same round as the spell takes effect. A spell with a full round casting time does not take effect until the beginning of your next turn.

[Agincourt]

I'm not entirely convinced about that though. The SRD says:


It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn.
For D&D, specific overrides general, so IMO the spell specifically states the summoned monster will arrive in the same turn and can act.

This bit of specificity does not override the 1 round casting time. It makes no mention of the casting time. Like all spells, its effects begin once a character finishes casting. In this instance, 1 round after the character starts casting the spell, the summoned monster appears where designated and acts immediately. There is no conflict between the specific and the general rule.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Those alternatives are great but too complicated. I just tell my players this:

"Substract ALL damage from your hp. When you're at negative hp, you're out. When you're at -10 hp, you die. Hp 0 is kind of quirky, let's handle that separately when it comes up. Remember that nonlethal damage heals differently than lethal damage. That's the only difference.... Well, hp 0 is different too, but let's not get into that.
And before I forget: If someone makes a troll, please tell me. Things work differently with regeneration."
Everyone nods and understands. No confusion.

I just run with "your hp x2 +10" is your non-lethal cap. Exceed iy and you will die. Regeneration adds a point to the multiplier for each point of regeneration.

Edit: max hp*

[Dawgmoah]

That shouldn't be an argument: either you're following RAW and he can, indeed ride a horse without training (and without a ride check):

Or you aren't following RAW and you let your players know this rule up front.

So who was in the wrong here?

City boy didn't know what a horse was much less which way to put the saddle on. In that case I ignored RAW, and liked it.

[Deophaun]

City boy didn't know what a horse was much less which way to put the saddle on. In that case I ignored RAW, and liked it.
And didn't tell the player up front.

So you were wrong. Got it.

[Flickerdart]

City boy didn't know what a horse was much less which way to put the saddle on. In that case I ignored RAW, and liked it.
So your contribution to the most common ignored rules thread is about the plays ignoring rules you made up? I am not certain how this qualifies as "most common."

[Dawgmoah]

{Scrubbed}

[Deophaun]

Ah, yes, that's right. You're the guy who says everything about all spells in any conditions are supposed to be told up front. I remember that post.You remember poorly, as well.

I am sure you follow all RAW to the strictest definition of your interpretation.... Well, not really.
Because it's obviously an unreasonable expectation that only about 80% of the DMs I've had have ever managed to live up to.

Oh wait, that kind of implies the opposite of "unreasonable," doesn't it?

[Dawgmoah]

{Scrubbed}

[Deophaun]

Don't need to remember; there's search engines for that.
{Scrubbed}

[Curmudgeon]

If it's not intentionally hiding and not difficult to see, you don't need a Spot check.
That's explicitly contradicted by the rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass), where it sets the Spot DC at 0 to see something Large in plain sight.
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Note the important qualifier.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

That's explicitly contradicted by the rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass), where it sets the Spot DC at 0 to see something Large in plain sight. Note the important qualifier.

So, by the RAW, all campaign settings are dark sun. Even campaigns not taking place on the burnt world of Athas.

[Deophaun]

That's explicitly contradicted by the rules here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass), where it sets the Spot DC at 0 to see something Large in plain sight.
You mean a Table sets a Spot DC, while the Text says the opposite? Gee, if only there was some general rule to know which trumps what in such a conflict? :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

You mean a Table sets a Spot DC, while the Text says the opposite?
Except, of course, it doesn't say the opposite. Again, note the important qualifier.

[Deophaun]

Except, of course, it doesn't say the opposite. Again, note the important qualifier.
Which refers to this:

Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
And keep in mind, there are rules for spotting distant objects that throw distance penalties completely out the window. If you're flying you can see a mountain 100 miles away with a DC 20 Spot check, and you automatically spot it at 50 miles away; no check.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This thread has become a mess of rule violating bickering and external baggage. Locked for review.