PDA

View Full Version : Uninforced rules?



Lolzords
2007-07-16, 03:35 PM
Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

For me, I never enforce the rule about how multiclassed characters take an xp penalty, seems kind of stupid to me.

PlatinumJester
2007-07-16, 03:41 PM
You can be killed by a caltrop if you are on 1HP. However this saved my life once so I don't mind to much.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-07-16, 03:43 PM
Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

For me, I never enforce the rule about how multiclassed characters take an xp penalty, seems kind of stupid to me.

I agree particularly when it does not also apply to PRCs which generally grant a PC more bennies than a standard class.

Sorcerers get standard spellcasting either as a Shaman (Complete Divine) or as if affected by undertaking the Kobold ritual.

Summon Familiar is converted to the Call Familiar Feat so PRCs do not affect plus at level 14 you can get a Special Familiar like an Imp, Quasit, Lantern Archon, Coure or Musteval without wasting a feat with a Limited Wish.

Paladin is a +1 Holy Crusader Alignment Template not a class which can be applied to any class without the LA buydown option and there are Variants for NG and CG aligned heroes.

Bards, Sorcereres, Favored Souls and other spontaneous casters who take a Domain get the domain spells as known spells.

UA/D20 SRD Spellcasters or Sorcerers taking the Battle Sorcerer option lose daily casting and known spells mechanically before it is replaced with the Battle Domain. So spellcasting basically remains the same but 2 known spells leveling up.

Sorcerers or Spellcasters can specialize and take a Variant Domain from UA/D20 SRD which increases their known spells and also increases their daily spellcasting by one a day.

Green Bean
2007-07-16, 03:45 PM
My group's DM usually ignores the death from massive damage rule at higher levels. When fighters and spellcasters get to a certain point, they're forcing a save every turn; you're bound to roll a one pretty quickly.

bugsysservant
2007-07-16, 03:54 PM
I generally dislike the rules on torture given in the BoVD. While some, such as the iron maiden, make sense, others, such as the needles or thumbscrews, don't. By RAW, it is really easy to kill someone with needles, since each deals 1 point of damage each. My brother sews, so I frequently step on needles, but I never realized what damage I was doing to myself. The same goes for thumbscrews which deal 1d2, making it even easier to kill someone by crushing their fingers.

What irritates me most about these rules, is that they clearly exist where Hp's break down. Someone who had their fingers in thumbscrews can't wield a sword, but they aren't about to die. But WoTC is always so reluctant to impose penalties that aren't direct Hp damage, or ability damage (damaging Dex. would make more sense for thumbscrews.), that you almost never see logical penalties. But thats probably just me.

Blackbrrd
2007-07-16, 04:05 PM
Never enforced the death from massive damage
Never enforced the 1/2 rate movement from tumble
Never enforced the "you loose class-skill-ness when multiclassing from rogue to fighter, so now your ranks in tumble skill points cost double!"
Quit enforcing AoO when getting up from prone, its bad enough wasting a move (and therefore, often a full attack)
Soon gonna stop enforcing every other square you move sideways costs double

tainsouvra
2007-07-16, 04:11 PM
Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce? Under most circumstances, the two-weapon fighting penalties are one point too high. Sparing you all the math, under most circumstances it is no better than fighting with one two-handed weapon under the canon rules, but costs you a feat to break even while most feats give a small advantage instead. One point of attack bonus pretty much makes it work out, so all TWF penalties are one lower when I'm DMing a homebrew campaign.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 04:25 PM
Under most circumstances, the two-weapon fighting penalties are one point too high. Sparing you all the math, under most circumstances it is no better than fighting with one two-handed weapon under the canon rules, but costs you a feat to break even while most feats give a small advantage instead. One point of attack bonus pretty much makes it work out, so all TWF penalties are one lower when I'm DMing a homebrew campaign.

That sounds doubtful. What kind of modifiers are you taking into account? Power Attack? Charging? Standard Attack? Magic Item Cost?

JackMage666
2007-07-16, 04:38 PM
Never enforeced XP from multiclassing (and thus got rid of favored class).
Never made someone lose class-skills for multiclassing.
Never dealt with most form of movement, in most cases. In chases, we deal with movement, or charges, but never amount traveled/day or anything like that.
Standing from prone can be done as a Move Action (and provoke an AoO), or a Full-Round action (and be safe from AoO).
Picking up a weapon is the same as standing from prone (thus, if you pick it up quickly, you can still attack, once)
On a natural 1, you drop your weapon. Nothing else. If you use natural weapons, you're safe from this.
Think that's about it, but if we ignore it, I might not know the rule.

tainsouvra
2007-07-16, 05:01 PM
That sounds doubtful. What kind of modifiers are you taking into account? Power Attack? Charging? Standard Attack? Magic Item Cost? Take your pick, honestly. Look at a level, choice of gear appropriate for that level, and opponents of a proper CR for that level.

A couple years back, I used to float around the WotC boards, and there was a very long series of threads involving all sorts of spreadsheets, feat combinations, geat setups, etc and a two-handed weapon with Power Attack + Cleave beat almost anything you could do with two feats spent on two-weapon styles.

TWF came out ahead under some circumstances if you had very high sneak attack (or other per-hit dice of that type), or if you had moderate sneak attack and spent significantly more on your weapons than your comparison weapon (to add per-hit effects to both weapons when compared to someone who only did it with one weapon), but other than that it did not present a clear advantage under reasonable circumstances.

As an amusing aside, two-weapon fighting became one feat rather than two, and Rangers got the option to skip it entirely in favor of ranged attacks, when they did their revision...apparently they were aware of a problem big enough to justify an overhaul. Before they combined TWF and Ambidexterity, you were actually weaker using them than taking almost any other combination of feats, it took a +0 modifier to make the two-feat version balance out. Rangers were not amused by the analysis :smallamused:

mostlyharmful
2007-07-16, 05:10 PM
.poisen - see current thread... Blech
.can't sleep in heavy armour (what, you never learned to sleep on your back? and i have boots of endure elemnets so i'm toasty warm)
.improvised lock picks - no way whatever crap you have on you can swap in for well crafted high carbon steel tools
.one day per spell scribing, i don't know about you but if i really think about what i write and write as carefully as i can i write about a page every twenty fife minutes, not per day.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 05:12 PM
Take your pick, honestly. Look at a level, choice of gear appropriate for that level, and opponents of a proper CR for that level.

A couple years back, I used to float around the WotC boards, and there was a very long series of threads involving all sorts of spreadsheets, feat combinations, geat setups, etc and a two-handed weapon with Power Attack + Cleave beat almost anything you could do with two feats spent on two-weapon styles.

TWF came out ahead under some circumstances if you had very high sneak attack (or other per-hit dice of that type), or if you had moderate sneak attack and spent significantly more on your weapons than your comparison weapon (to add per-hit effects to both weapons when compared to someone who only did it with one weapon), but other than that it did not present a clear advantage under reasonable circumstances.

As an amusing aside, two-weapon fighting became one feat rather than two, and Rangers got the option to skip it entirely in favor of ranged attacks, when they did their revision...apparently they were aware of a problem big enough to justify an overhaul. Before they combined TWF and Ambidexterity, you were actually weaker using them than taking almost any other combination of feats, it took a +0 modifier to make the two-feat version balance out. Rangers were not amused by the analysis :smallamused:
Sure, but how does reducing the penalties by one balance all this out? I'm fairly well acquainted with the Maths of Two Weapon Fighting versus Two Handed Fighting, so don't be shy.

Dark Knight Renee
2007-07-16, 05:14 PM
Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

For me, I never enforce the rule about how multiclassed characters take an xp penalty, seems kind of stupid to me.



Diddo. I also ignore massive damage saves, because the hit point system is terrible enough without muddling the very notion of what it is with that silly (and inconvenient) rule.


Otherwise... there are a lot of rules that don't make sense. I often play systemless instead of dealing with the absurdity, though when playing in a D&D setting setting I usually end up using the magic rules even then.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-16, 05:20 PM
Never enforced alignment.

2nd ed had this rule where you got more experience if your (randomly determined) ability scores were high. Never enforced that either.

Probably some other stuff.

tainsouvra
2007-07-16, 05:24 PM
Sure, but how does reducing the penalties by one balance all this out? I'm fairly well acquainted with the Maths of Two Weapon Fighting versus Two Handed Fighting, so don't be shy. Because if it breaks even at -2, then it's one point better than breaking even if you reduce the penalty by one...and "one point better attack bonus" is already established as a reasonable feat?

mostlyharmful
2007-07-16, 05:25 PM
actually i like to play with the massive damage rule, i figure that by the time you're dealing 50+ damage in one shot you're voyaging far beyound the "oh, i just dodge out of the way but pull a muscle on the way" sort of mentality, you're at the "taking out significant chunks of your body mass" level.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 05:27 PM
But it doesn't break even... you still need a plethora of Feats, you still suck when charging (or alternatively are great if you have some sort of Leap Attack/Pounce Ability), you still cannot move and make a Full Attack. It still costs more to enchant two Weapons than one, which results in increased Power Attack Damage for the two Weapon Fighter, Speed effects still don't stack, the list goes on and on.

Am I misunderstanding something you're saying here?

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 05:44 PM
actually i like to play with the massive damage rule, i figure that by the time you're dealing 50+ damage in one shot you're voyaging far beyound the "oh, i just dodge out of the way but pull a muscle on the way" sort of mentality, you're at the "taking out significant chunks of your body mass" level.

I'm not saying you're wrong. (Honestly I'm not.) I just think it's weird that HP is an abstraction of "Your ability to stand in combat without dying", and that at high levels (say 100+ HP) if somebody takes a chunk out of that ability of a significantly large size, you could die.

Take the example of a Fighter with 125 HP. IF we take the abstraction idea at face value, the loss of 50 HP reduces her ability to continue in combat by a little less than half, probably backed up by the idea of wearing her down.

Are we talking random heart-attacks here?

If you don't take the abstraction idea at face value, this fighter has more blood than your average anime cast, let alone a single character.

It doesn't work!
*Grumble*

Edit: I didn't like this post and reworked it considerably.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 05:51 PM
Nah, it's still a reasonable abstraction. All that's being said is that if someone or something can inflict 50+ Points of Damage, even Divine Intervention, Skill and Luck may not be enough to help you.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 05:52 PM
Nah, it's still a reasonable abstraction. All that's being said is that if someone or something can inflict 50+ Points of Damage, even Divine Intervention, Skill and Luck may not be enough to help you.

Haha, I'll cling to that weak but plausible idea rather than try to think of something that works better (I doubt that there is one, really).

Diggorian
2007-07-16, 05:54 PM
I generally try to use all of the system because it is a system. Changing X can effect Y, Z, and A subtely and generate issues down the line.

Rules I dont enforce have an altered form, as houserules:

Death at negative 10, no. Death at negative Con score, yes.

Treasure per encounter, maybe. Treasure for story resolution, yes.

Massive damage ... not at all. Doesnt jive with HP abstration. 50 damage out of 120 total HP = a grievously bloody wound. The same damage out of 25 HP total = impalement, with a blade twist, and disemboweling withdrawl (unless your Con is 26 :smallwink: ).

I do however inflict Fatigued when half HP are gone and Exhausted when down to the last quarter.

EDIT- Read the ninja posts ... still no mass damage, except for D20 Modern for required versimulatude.

Kyeudo
2007-07-16, 05:55 PM
Complete Psionics Errata - Most of this books was editted by monkeys and play tested by the monkeys' imaginary friends.
Multiclassing XP penalties - No optimized build ever ends up with one, so why even bother? It only hurts the 'play for fun' types

Matthew
2007-07-16, 05:56 PM
Haha, I'll cling to that weak but plausible idea rather than try to think of something that works better (I doubt that there is one, really).

In the context of D&D mechanics, I always thought it was to make things like slabs of stone landing on Adventurers, Maximised Fireballs or 100' Falls have the possibility of actually causing death.

Gralamin
2007-07-16, 05:58 PM
I do not enforce Losing Class Skills due to multiclassing
I do not enforce XP penalty for Multiclassing
I do not make Arcane casters pay for their first Familiar

Thats all I can think of for now.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-16, 07:16 PM
In the context of D&D mechanics, I always thought it was to make things like slabs of stone landing on Adventurers, Maximised Fireballs or 100' Falls have the possibility of actually causing death.

Haha, I'll take it.

Serenity
2007-07-16, 07:31 PM
The problem with the abstraction of 'losing HP=wearing down' is that a number of attacks explicitly rely on hitting the target in a significant way--Stunning Blow leaps to mind, as well as many more deadly ones, like huge monsters biting hold and shaking, etc...

Matthew
2007-07-16, 07:37 PM
Like many things in D&D, though, that abstraction is 99% imagination. A Stunning Blow doesn't need to cause Fatal Damage, but some things just won't make sense.

Gavin Sage
2007-07-16, 07:48 PM
Emcuberance rules. Played many games where it was decided it was simply too boring and unnessecary. It was a bother to calculate, a bother to monitor, and made things less fune. Also tended to ignore movement reductions, but we were crap shooting movement anyways since nobody wanted to bother with grids. D&D is a dice game, not a chess game. Some other minor rules.

Also the XP thing is kinda stupid since multiclassing is bad enough for you character as it is (well beyond some fighting class dips) and only for Prestige Classing in this day and age. So none of that, but never came up anyways.

kjones
2007-07-16, 07:57 PM
Also the XP thing is kinda stupid since multiclassing is bad enough for you character as it is (well beyond some fighting class dips) and only for Prestige Classing in this day and age. So none of that, but never came up anyways.

Amen to that. Multiclassing is a penalty in and of itself. No sense in discouraging creativity, especially when it results in such underpowered characters. :smallyuk:

tainsouvra
2007-07-16, 07:58 PM
But it doesn't break even... you still need a plethora of Feats, you still suck when charging (or alternatively are great if you have some sort of Leap Attack/Pounce Ability), you still cannot move and make a Full Attack. It still costs more to enchant two Weapons than one, which results in increased Power Attack Damage for the two Weapon Fighter, Speed effects still don't stack, the list goes on and on.

Am I misunderstanding something you're saying here? Actually, I misunderstood you, and I apologize for the confusion. I had thought you were saying that reducing the penalties by one was an unnecessary bonus to TWF, not that it would take more than that for you to consider it worthwhile.

TWF has been, and will probably continue to be, a style that strongly encourages extra dice (sneak attack, flaming/holy weapons, etc) and limited movement. I was saying that, even with those conditions, it was still suboptimal so I reduced the penalties slightly in my campaigns. If none of those apply to you, for example you're a straight Fighter using a typically-designed melee weapon, then there really isn't any good way of making TWF competitive because you really don't play into its strengths.

Townopolis
2007-07-16, 08:29 PM
-No XP penalty for multiclassing, for all the above reasons
-No having to re-buy your basic expendables (You automatically refill your spell component pouch, quiver, and jug of lantern oil after 2 hours in town)
-I usually remove save-or-die effects from monsters and NPCs, level drain too. I find those 2 things to be an especially big pain in the rump as a player, I'm not going to inflict them on my players.

Anxe
2007-07-16, 08:36 PM
I often refer to the rules I don't enforce as homebrewed out of the system. Or whatever you'd say. I don't ignore them I actively don't use 'em.

Matthew
2007-07-16, 08:42 PM
Actually, I misunderstood you, and I apologize for the confusion. I had thought you were saying that reducing the penalties by one was an unnecessary bonus to TWF, not that it would take more than that for you to consider it worthwhile.

TWF has been, and will probably continue to be, a style that strongly encourages extra dice (sneak attack, flaming/holy weapons, etc) and limited movement. I was saying that, even with those conditions, it was still suboptimal so I reduced the penalties slightly in my campaigns. If none of those apply to you, for example you're a straight Fighter using a typically-designed melee weapon, then there really isn't any good way of making TWF competitive because you really don't play into its strengths.

Ah right, okay. No problem. Currently, I am in favour of dispensing with Iterative Attacks altogether (possibly in favour of Saga type Damage Bonuses) and making TWF Penalties -6, -4 and -2, offset by the TWF Feat and OTWF, which makes it look very similar to my (A)D&D Game, but that's none too surprising...

Rofl-Falafal
2007-07-16, 11:44 PM
I have officially ruled out all 3rd party (and even 1st party) sourcebooks beyond the core 3 unless explicitly agreed upon by the whole group beforehand. It is so exasperating to watch a player make their character in some odd direction by taking mismatched feats and skills, only to find that he's trying to meet the requirements of some ungodly prestige class that will let him triple his strength score or something.

Even worse are the feats. The ones in the PHB are quite enough for players to power-game off of. We don't need every freakin' book out there to suggest twenty-five new ones that will likely unbalance the character's build some more. (Ooh! This one lets me Trip and then Coup-de-grace in the same round, and all I have to do is make a DC 15 dex check!) As a result, before you take a feat from said agreed-upon sourcebook, you must tell everyone what exactly it will let you do. If it's a "lazer-eyes once per round as a move action" feat that only requires 3 ranks in Spot and a 13 Int, then you're not taking it. :smallannoyed: (I'd much prefer to find out about it before they use it to kill the Dragon King in 2 rounds)

JackMage666
2007-07-16, 11:53 PM
I have officially ruled out all 3rd party (and even 1st party) sourcebooks beyond the core 3 unless explicitly agreed upon by the whole group beforehand. It is so exasperating to watch a player make their character in some odd direction by taking mismatched feats and skills, only to find that he's trying to meet the requirements of some ungodly prestige class that will let him triple his strength score or something.

Even worse are the feats. The ones in the PHB are quite enough for players to power-game off of. We don't need every freakin' book out there to suggest twenty-five new ones that will likely unbalance the character's build some more. (Ooh! This one lets me Trip and then Coup-de-grace in the same round, and all I have to do is make a DC 15 dex check!) As a result, before you take a feat from said agreed-upon sourcebook, you must tell everyone what exactly it will let you do. If it's a "lazer-eyes once per round as a move action" feat that only requires 3 ranks in Spot and a 13 Int, then you're not taking it. :smallannoyed: (I'd much prefer to find out about it before they use it to kill the Dragon King in 2 rounds)

That's a little harsh, but understandable. I dunno, I like the extra classes like the Binder, the Scout, the Warlock, and so on. I'd hate to lose them.

MrNexx
2007-07-17, 12:23 AM
.can't sleep in heavy armour (what, you never learned to sleep on your back? and i have boots of endure elemnets so i'm toasty warm)

Sleep on my back? No problem. Sleep with pieces of steel digging into my body at a wide variety of uncomfortable points? That's a bit harder.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-07-17, 01:09 AM
I actually enjoy the encumbrance rules. Without them, items like the Handy Haversack and Bags of Holding aren't nearly as useful. Usually, if I'm making a mid to high level PC, a Handy Haversack is the first thing I buy, and usually encumbrance is never an issue after that.

I find some of the most annoying rules to be the aerial movement/combat rules. Keeping track of minimum forward velocity, maximum ascending angles, and other such nonsense makes my brain hurt, so I tend to limit the amount of epic flying madness encounters in my games.

The_Werebear
2007-07-17, 02:02 AM
I usually ignore weather penalties unless they are absurd (firing bows into a hurricane).

I ignore encumbrance unless it starts to get silly (if they have a bag of holding, I ignore it even when it gets silly).

For the longest time, I didn't bother with XP, simply leveling people up when I felt like it. I use it now.

XP cost of crafting. Normally, this might be a problem, but few players are interested in crafting items in my groups, so for the few that do bother, I extract some other price.

Food, unless they plan to do something where food supplies are an important thing to monitor.

Can't think of a single time I have enforced an XP penalty for multiclassing.

CyberWyld
2007-07-17, 02:42 AM
We may be weird because I didn't see it posted on here. But we never enforce weight as long as it's nothing extreme. If you need to swim, climb or carry something REALLY heavy we take it into account. Otherwise we don't keep track of what your armor/weps/food weigh as long as it's in reason. LIke I said, if you wanna toss the cleric on your back and jump a chasm some lbs are going to come into effect. Maybe dumb, but that's how we do it.



Hasta

Kurald Galain
2007-07-17, 03:47 AM
Usually, if I'm making a mid to high level PC, a Handy Haversack is the first thing I buy, and usually encumbrance is never an issue after that.

Something else I don't enforce is the assumption that characters can simply produce a handy haversack from Heward's Mass-produced Magic Market (or from Quest Buy).

Jarlax
2007-07-17, 04:33 AM
there are a lot of rules i don't bother to enforce because i find them so fiddly they detract from the game, multiclassing XP is one of those but the others include:

light sources: half the party have torches, the other half have darkvision its easier to just say everyone can see X distance at all times then figure out who can see what and police Players to act only on what their PC can see.

encumbrance: calculating the total weight of items a PC carries and adding the weight of the stuff the pick up in a dungeon is more effort than i normally bother with.

spell components: it is assumed all player have eschew materials feat for their casters rather than worry about spell components.

skill checks: i don't enforce skill checks like swim climb etc if there is not a dramatic element involved. having the cleric in full plate with no ranks in climb constantly take falling damage any time he has to make a check is an unnecessary hassle for the players.

warmachine
2007-07-17, 05:38 AM
<Grammar Nazi>
Unenforced rules
</Grammar Nazi>

My DM doesn't play with Death by Massive Damage because many of the monsters have hundreds of HP and the arcane casters could trigger the rule.

Swooper
2007-07-17, 06:20 AM
Wow. With my regular group, listing the ones we DO enforce might actually be a shorter list. I'm gonna attempt to list the main ones:

*Wealth By Level
*Armour Check Penalty
*XP (our DM just levels us up when he feels like it)
*Multiclassing XP penalty (would be hard to implement anyway with no XP, wouldn't it? Also, it's stupid and unneccisary.)
*Encumbrance
*We use a houserule system for running (which I dislike, but the default one is no fun either)
*Battlegrid and tactical movement, with AoOs and such (which I really dislike not using)
*Material spell components (most of the players play sorcerers over wizards, so it makes sense for them, I always buy a component pouch myself)

When I DM (which is not all that often), I enforce most of those except the XP penalty for multiclassing.

tainsouvra
2007-07-17, 07:16 AM
I have officially ruled out all 3rd party (and even 1st party) sourcebooks beyond the core 3 unless explicitly agreed upon by the whole group beforehand. Makes sense to me. I view all those books in the light I believe they were originally intended--optional additions at the DM/player's discretion. Adding them all, without any concern for their cumulative effect, is just silly :smallsmile:

In my own games, I do actually accept nearly anything, but once in a while I have to rule against a particular feat or ability (Book of Exalted Deeds, in particular, has run into that a couple times).


Sleep on my back? No problem. Sleep with pieces of steel digging into my body at a wide variety of uncomfortable points? That's a bit harder. Oddly enough, a well-made armor actually wouldn't be all that uncomfortable. You shouldn't have steel digging into your body if you're using a good suit.

Irreverent Fool
2007-07-17, 07:22 AM
I generally dislike the rules on torture given in the BoVD. While some, such as the iron maiden, make sense, others, such as the needles or thumbscrews, don't. By RAW, it is really easy to kill someone with needles, since each deals 1 point of damage each. My brother sews, so I frequently step on needles, but I never realized what damage I was doing to myself. The same goes for thumbscrews which deal 1d2, making it even easier to kill someone by crushing their fingers.

What irritates me most about these rules, is that they clearly exist where Hp's break down. Someone who had their fingers in thumbscrews can't wield a sword, but they aren't about to die. But WoTC is always so reluctant to impose penalties that aren't direct Hp damage, or ability damage (damaging Dex. would make more sense for thumbscrews.), that you almost never see logical penalties. But thats probably just me.

This is classic hack and slash D&D. It's unrealistic but it works to keep the game going. I agree that it breaks down for things like torture and I'd like to see a limb get lopped off once in awhile (give me a dang use for my Ring of Regeneration).

If you have a chance, I HIGHLY suggest taking a look at the damage system in Cyberpunk 2020 Second Edition. Any hit is applied randomly to a part of your body based on a d10 roll. Called shots are accomplished by taking a penalty to your attack roll, naturally. Each limb has a certain number of HP (which is static in Cyberpunk as it's not a level-based system). Taking so many points of damage to a limb disables it, while taking so many points of damage in a single hit to a limb can sever it. It tends to make combat more realistic and downright nasty. Additionally, any time you take damage you have to make a check against your COOL stat or be disabled from pain/shock/etc.

I'd like to see an adaptation to D&D. In my homebrew world (including rules et al) I use the basic hit-point mechanic but use the Cyberpunk system for projectile-based powder firearms, thus making them FAR more deadly than swords or sorcery.

Diggorian
2007-07-17, 11:09 AM
Something else I don't enforce is the assumption that characters can simply produce a handy haversack from Heward's Mass-produced Magic Market (or from Quest Buy).

Yeah, this isnt an assumption in my games either. There's even a houserule that requires a Knowledge Arcana check to have even heard of a magic item.

As an extension of this, I dont use the demographic s in the DMG. The highest level person in a city is maybe lvl 6 or 7, and are old or venerable usually.

MrNexx
2007-07-17, 11:18 AM
Oddly enough, a well-made armor actually wouldn't be all that uncomfortable. You shouldn't have steel digging into your body if you're using a good suit.

For sleeping? I understand that it won't be that bad for standing or sitting, but have a hard time picturing full plate NOT digging into you uncomfortably if you try to sleep in it.

bugsysservant
2007-07-17, 11:22 AM
How about the rules governing random encounters? No encounter should be random, or else the game can slow to a crawl as the adventurers struggle to reach a dungeon. Also it detracts from the realism of a game, where the same road used for trade by a powerful nation, can't be walked down safely by PCs.

mostlyharmful
2007-07-17, 12:36 PM
a well padded suit of plate that's ajusted to fit you by someone who knows what they're doing is actually quite comfortable, it can get a bit smelly if you keep it on all day and i suspect that the fatigue would be caused far more by dehydration from wearing all that all night in a warm environment or by leeching body heat in a cold one than by interrupted sleep. Come to think of it those are actually good reasons to feel fatigued, I think I'm going to enforce that one in the future.

Diggorian
2007-07-17, 02:12 PM
How about the rules governing random encounters? No encounter should be random, or else the game can slow to a crawl as the adventurers struggle to reach a dungeon. Also it detracts from the realism of a game, where the same road used for trade by a powerful nation, can't be walked down safely by PCs.

But that's why they have caravan guards in the first place. :smallbiggrin:

I only use them in wilderness encounters, not in dungeons as the DMG writes because dungeons have a more tight ecosystem being small places. What's to stop the stirges from attacking the minotaur; why doesnt the minotaur take care of the dark mantles infesting his library; do the kobolds pay rent to the minotaur or the grimlocks?

Travel overland you can reasonably run into anything that fits that terrain. Bandits and low CR stuff are near the main roads because that's wear the treasure is and anything too big would have been dealt with by adventures or the army.

Traveling trackless puts the "wild" in wilderness. I'll periodically roll d%, the higher the rarer and tougher the encounter.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-07-17, 02:37 PM
Never enforced alignment.

2nd ed had this rule where you got more experience if your (randomly determined) ability scores were high. Never enforced that either.

Probably some other stuff.

Well, it wasn't really random (unless you weren't allowed to place your stats the way your want). You got a 10% XP bonus if your primary ability for your class was 16 or over (Str for fighters, Wis for clerics, Int for Wizards, etc...).


In my group, we usually ignore encumberance unless it's important (like if you'd be into heavy loads). Haversacks and bags of holding are still useful since whatever doesn't fit in the backpack has to go somewhere.

We also avoid rolling for HP. In one game, we take average after 1st level, and the other group it's average rounded up. That way you don't have a Barbarian with 36 HP at level 5.

tainsouvra
2007-07-17, 02:53 PM
For sleeping? I understand that it won't be that bad for standing or sitting, but have a hard time picturing full plate NOT digging into you uncomfortably if you try to sleep in it. Actually, full plate is the least likely to cause you that problem. I'd be more concerned about something like a breastplate, which doesn't have the same mechanisms to balance its own weight. Full plate is carefully balanced, padded, and fit to your exact size. If you can't be comfortable in it, it was made wrong.

For reference, one of the people in my current gaming group has slept in custom-made armor, and insists it was more comfortable to have it on than to sleep on the ground without it due to the padding inside the armor. Yes, my group has "that guy" who honestly has done these things :smallsmile:

The armor fatigue rules aren't really based on reality, they just work well for a plot device with ambush encounters.


i suspect that the fatigue would be caused far more by dehydration from wearing all that all night in a warm environment or by leeching body heat in a cold one than by interrupted sleep. On the other hand, it would have no downside in a suitably temperate climate, and would actually be more comfortable in a mildly cold one. The rules aren't really made to reflect real fatigue.