We've been playing it wrong! (How to proceed?)

[weckar]

So, I guess this is a common problem, but I've never found a satisfactory solution to it: What if a player or group finds out you've been playing a specific rule wrong for a long time? Is it best to continue using the rule wrong, or is it better to change? Arguments exist for both in my head, and I can't really pick a good way forward.

For my specific example, I recently found out that the Ranger's favored enemy does not actually apply to attack rolls (gasp!).

Keep playing it like we have, and it works for us and the martials get something nice. However, if any of the players would find another group they make take those expectations with them...

[Dagroth]

Just say it's a "House Rule"... no biggie.

Make sure to bring it up... "Hey, I recently read that ability-X doesn't do effect-W... but, we're not going to change it because it's not that big of a deal-breaker."

That way, at the worst a player will arrive at a new group and say: "Hey, in my old group we said ability-X should also give effect-W. Is that okay here?"

[Inevitability]

My group's usual policy is just accept that we've been doing it wrong up to then and rule it correctly from there on.

[ExLibrisMortis]

My group's usual policy is just accept that we've been doing it wrong up to then and rule it correctly from there on.
This is what we do, as well. It's not a big problem either way, but sticking closer to the books is like proper spelling: it helps if you're communicating with people you haven't met before (in casu, forumites).

[Pugwampy]

I recently found out that the Ranger's favored enemy does not actually apply to attack rolls (gasp!).

It does not ? I need to reread ranger class again . Thats how I always played it .

[Zanos]

Case by case. Some rule mishaps are pretty serious and should be corrected. Some are not.


It does not ? I need to reread ranger class again . Thats how I always played it .
Damage rolls and selected skill checks. Favored enemy is not great.

[johnbragg]

Once upon a time, our group discovered that we had been misreading the 2nd level Complete Divine spell "Divine Sacrifice". The paladin player thought that it meant he could "charge up" before combat, sacrificing 4-5 rounds of hp for added damage dice on his Smite Evil. (Followed immediately by my healbot cleric pumping a Cure Moderate/Critical Wounds into him.)

This was in days of yore when internet access was limited and charop was called "minmaxing", only the paladin player owned the book, and the DM allowed the spell. Finally, I read the spell description and found the very clearly stated limitation that you couldn't do that.

Since the rule mis-interpretation led to tactically repetitive rocket-tag between the mildly-optimized (and rules-lawyering) paladin and the monsters, who had to be buffed to the point where if they weren't one-shotted by the paladin they were almost untouchable by the rest of the party.

In that case, following the actual rule improved the game.

Taking away an accidental houserule that Favored Enemy bonus applies to the attack roll as well as damage? That, I think, does not improve the game. It makes a fairly weak ability a little bit less so.

[Segev]

As has been said, handle it case-by-case. The general considerations I'd apply are:

1) Are you having fun with the rule as-is?
2) Is it making the game hard for the DM to manage, using it as-is?
3) Is it harming anybody's fun to run it as you are?

If the answer to (1) is "yes," and the other two is "no," I wouldn't bother changing it. If the answers to (2) and (3) are "yes," you should consider changing it, but make sure the change really will solve the problems before doing so.

[Malimar]

My groups' policy for when it is discovered that a rule has been misread is generally "All the results from the wrong way of doing it stand, but we do it the right way henceforth".

[Keral]

There is, however, somewhere a feat or variant that allows favoured enemies bonuses to be applied to attack rolls. Unless I dreamt of it. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edit: Found it, Solitary Hunting, it's from Dragon#347 tho. And replaces animal companion.

[ComaVision]

My groups' policy for when it is discovered that a rule has been misread is generally "All the results from the wrong way of doing it stand, but we do it the right way henceforth".

This is my approach as well. Though, in my games, FE gives +2 to attack rolls and +2d6 to damage (houserule).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd say the best course of action is a quick discussion with the group, before or after a session: "hey, I've realized that we've been doing X when the rules say Y; do we want to keep that as a houserule, or do we want to stick to the newly-discovered rules?"

In most cases, I think I'd allow a minor boost (such as the Favored Enemy thing) to stand at least for the rest of the current campaign, and correct an unintentional nerf immediately.

[Zaq]

I'd say the best course of action is a quick discussion with the group, before or after a session: "hey, I've realized that we've been doing X when the rules say Y; do we want to keep that as a houserule, or do we want to stick to the newly-discovered rules?"

In most cases, I think I'd allow a minor boost (such as the Favored Enemy thing) to stand at least for the rest of the current campaign, and correct an unintentional nerf immediately.

Pretty much this.

It really boils down to whether you like the results of the unintended houserule or not. If you think the game is more fun the way you'd been doing it, then that's awesome. There's nothing wrong with houserules as long as you know what you're doing and you're having fun. If you think the game is more fun by RAW, then obviously, you'll want to go with RAW.

And of course, if reverting to RAW makes a large part of a character's tricks unworkable or significantly less cool, that player should immediately be offered the ability to rework that part of their build. If you build in good faith towards a certain result and then that result is nerfed on a technicality, you shouldn't have to suffer as though you'd built your character stupidly with a full understanding of the rules. (I mean, even that sounds harsh—I generally believe that you should always play the character you want to play and do what is necessary to ensure your fun, as long as it isn't at the cost of the fun of your friends at the table. But you get me.)

[rrwoods]

Two main things to consider generally:

1. How much of an impact is your unintended houserule having on gameplay?
2. Same question, but for build choices?

Two main avenues to persue (in my opinion) generally:

A. Just roll with it.
B. Change the rule back to RAW, and allow any build decisions based on the rule to be changed for free (and, recursively, any decisions based on those decisions).

Thoughts on your specific case:

* I'd imagine tables with low optimization answer "don't care at all" for 2 and therefore pick A, which is totally cool.
* How much is the player going to miss +2 attack at the table? Are his attacks in the range where any bonus to attack makes a huge difference (hitting between 40% and 60%), or where it basically doesn't matter (hitting <15% or >85%)? If the player will really miss the bonus, strongly consider option A, as I don't think an individual +2 attack matters much.
* If your table is likely to experience (or is already experiencing!) big buffstacks (clerics and bards throwing around bonuses like candy), then the answer to 1 becomes "this might be a problem" and you should consider option B.

[Zanos]

My groups' policy for when it is discovered that a rule has been misread is generally "All the results from the wrong way of doing it stand, but we do it the right way henceforth".
Oh yeah, also this. I'm not gonna retcon weeks worth of playing. Or even a round most of the time.

[Geddy2112]

My groups' policy for when it is discovered that a rule has been misread is generally "All the results from the wrong way of doing it stand, but we do it the right way henceforth".

This is how it works at my table as well. Additionally, if the new way of doing things would utterly invalidate a feat/spell/skill ranks or make it an illegal feat or whatnot, the player is allowed to retrain the feat/spell/whatever to a legal choice at no penalty.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh yeah, also this. I'm not gonna retcon weeks worth of playing. Or even a round most of the time.
My one exception is if the mistake lead to a character's death; in that case yeah, we can fiddle with things a bit.

[Dagroth]

This is my approach as well. Though, in my games, FE gives +2 to attack rolls and +2d6 to damage (houserule).

I think there's a feat for that... You're essentially getting the effect of Bane Weapon.

BTW, that makes a Ranger a true murder machine against his favorite enemies at lower levels... And watch out for the Goblin with two levels of Ranger and Favored Enemy: Humans (or Elves, or whatever makes up a majority of the party...)

[Quertus]

My groups' policy for when it is discovered that a rule has been misread is generally "All the results from the wrong way of doing it stand, but we do it the right way henceforth".


Oh yeah, also this. I'm not gonna retcon weeks worth of playing. Or even a round most of the time.


This is how it works at my table as well. Additionally, if the new way of doing things would utterly invalidate a feat/spell/skill ranks or make it an illegal feat or whatnot, the player is allowed to retrain the feat/spell/whatever to a legal choice at no penalty.


My one exception is if the mistake lead to a character's death; in that case yeah, we can fiddle with things a bit.

This is why, when I have a rules question, I want it dealt with now, not between sessions. Because, if you don't deal with it immediately, you either have to retcon, or live with an inconsistent "backstory". :smallyuk: (Kudos to those who let people retcon their choices based on rules changes, btw)

But, in this case, meh. No one is going to notice some minor change to a few of the underlying numbers. Except maybe my signature wizard, who will create a simulacrum for the sole purpose of launching thousands of attacks to attempt to accurately measure deflection bonus, NAC bonus, saves, resistances, HP, etc. :smalltongue:

Personally, I like playing wizards, but I like letting martial characters have nice things. I'd say "let it stand" even if you thought Rangers got automatic "save or die" on every attack against their chosen enemies. :smallwink:

[Zanos]

I would definitely let someone change their character build choices if a ruling was significantly contrary to how they expected their character to work.

[Telonius]

If the mistake has been working for you and not affecting game balance, call it a feature (not a bug), make it a houserule and move on. It's not like giving Ranger +10 (at most) to attack vs a particular enemy is going to break the game.

[ComaVision]

I think there's a feat for that... You're essentially getting the effect of Bane Weapon.

BTW, that makes a Ranger a true murder machine against his favorite enemies at lower levels... And watch out for the Goblin with two levels of Ranger and Favored Enemy: Humans (or Elves, or whatever makes up a majority of the party...)

I would be interested to know what feat if you recall.

While I do agree, I don't personally have a problem with that. It seems to me that's what it should do.

I have definitely killed a PC in my game with a FE: Human NPC though. (To be clear, it was not at level 1.)

[Faily]

If we discover that a rule is different than we thought it was, then we accept what we did wrong and use the correct rule from now on. It happened several times when we first made the switch from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder with rules like Stabilizing, Cure Minor Wounds, and Incorporeal.


Also, in 3rd Edition, Ranger's Favoured Enemy gave bonus to Damage and a select Skills. In Pathfinder, it's on both weapon Damage AND Attack rolls, and a select Skills.

Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table. He gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting to identify these creatures.

[Dagroth]

I would be interested to know what feat if you recall.

While I do agree, I don't personally have a problem with that. It seems to me that's what it should do.

I have definitely killed a PC in my game with a FE: Human NPC though. (To be clear, it was not at level 1.)

It's a prestige class feature... http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/shadow-sword-ranger/index.html

There's also the Nemesis Feat from BoED, but that's only +1d6

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would definitely let someone change their character build choices if a ruling was significantly contrary to how they expected their character to work.
Yeah, same. Even if it wasn't invalidating anything.