Rule Flubbing - How Far is Too Far?

[Genth]

Looking for advice on how far is too far when it comes to applying slightly different rules to NPCs to fit a concept than are available to the players. Often I find a NPC or a NPC team I'm building for the story doesn't quite work because of the way the rules work. To give a few examples of varying severity:

- Dropping extra hit points on an enemy in a crude way of bulking them up.

- A Rogue in a NPC party led by a Dread Vanguard Antipaladin getting Shatter Defenses without the prerequisites, since the Antipaladin can give the shaken condition on a wider scale. This party has been trained for a long time to help and assist eachother, so taking advantage of one anothers abilities like that makes sense.

- Straight up giving an NPC 5 levels in Hellknight Commander without meeting the Prestige Class' prerequisites.

- Giving a group of Fighters who are entirely trained with a particular exotic weapon the weapon proficiency for free.

Do any of these 'cross the line' for you, and if so, why?

[Seto]

This depends a lot on the relationship you have with your players. If they're very system-savvy, if they care about the behind-the-scenes, or if they have competition spirit (seeing fights as a direct building and strategy contest between the party and the DM), any and all of those might be perceived as cheating. If, on the other hand, players trust you to do what is necessary to have balanced encounters and an engaging story, any and all of those are fine.

For example, players won't blame me for beefing up a monster - they know that I tweak things and that conversely, if I see a monster that I deem under-CR'd, I'll nerf it in the interest of a fair challenge. But there're a couple caveats:
- the NPC's benefits should be mostly offensive rather than defensive. If you negate the PC's abilities by giving a monster immunity to something out of nowhere, it's unfair. If you're gonna give them an immunity, at least have a good explanation for it.
- Be sure of what you're doing. Because if your monster ends up overpowered and starts killing the PCs in unforeseen ways, two things can happen: they'll either feel cheated, or you'll tweak it back by fudging rolls, adjusting HP totals on the fly, etc., which I sometimes ended up doing, but it's a bad situation for a DM to be in - because at that point, even though you're trying to be fair, you're just adjusting combat to your liking, and there's not much point to rolling anymore.

[Psyren]

1) How would your players even know these villains don't meet all the prereqs for something? Are they reading their statblocks? That's considered metagaming.

2) Antagonists don't have to follow the same rules the PCs do. Maybe yours was chosen by Asmodeus' herald to become a Hellknight without meeting the reqs, or he took a trip to the 6th circle and drank from a cursed pool. The whole point of villains is that they're willing to do some things that the protagonists aren't.

[Darth Ultron]

Do any of these 'cross the line' for you, and if so, why?

They don't cross the line for me. Of course, I do whatever I want when DMing a game and think of the rules as just suggestions. So I will make anything anything I want.

And I'm sure many players would rant and rave and say something silly like ''I thought we were all playing the same game here!'', but then they will never know...

Though, I should point out there is no reason to be so crude when you ''do things''. As DM, you can do anything.....so remember that.

For example you can very easily ''follow the rules'' and do everything you want. Like you can just give the fighters a level or two and have them take the feat for real.

And extra hit points, the spell false life and related magic items, is very easy.

Really, there are dozens of ways to ''follow the rules'', and still get everything you want....so why not just do that?

[Coretron03]

I do whatever I want when DMing a game and think of the rules as just suggestions.
You don't even try do be subtle, do you?



On topic, Yeah, It should be ok. I agree with Psyren on his points. The PC's wouldn't really tell and I personally wouldn't care if the DM did anway because does it really matter that X fighter had one more feat then he should? The dm can do what he wants

[Jack_Simth]

Looking for advice on how far is too far when it comes to applying slightly different rules to NPCs to fit a concept than are available to the players. Often I find a NPC or a NPC team I'm building for the story doesn't quite work because of the way the rules work. To give a few examples of varying severity:

- Dropping extra hit points on an enemy in a crude way of bulking them up.

- A Rogue in a NPC party led by a Dread Vanguard Antipaladin getting Shatter Defenses without the prerequisites, since the Antipaladin can give the shaken condition on a wider scale. This party has been trained for a long time to help and assist eachother, so taking advantage of one anothers abilities like that makes sense.

- Straight up giving an NPC 5 levels in Hellknight Commander without meeting the Prestige Class' prerequisites.

- Giving a group of Fighters who are entirely trained with a particular exotic weapon the weapon proficiency for free.

Do any of these 'cross the line' for you, and if so, why?

As long as they're appropriate challenges with the appropriate rewards, not really. It's not until you're cheating the players that it's a problem. E.g., making a guy roll all 20's on his saves when the party casters have been throwing out save-or-lose spells (although that might be OK if it's been properly telegraphed and have a suitable in-character work around, rather than being something that you pull on the spot; if, for instance, the party's encountered credible rumors that the guy is immune to magic, and they've got a reasonable option of researching and removing that 'all 20's on saves' feature, then it's probably fine provided you adjust the CR for the fact that half the party has trouble contributing).

[Firechanter]

Basically there are, humm, three different philosophies here that are at odds with each other:

A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

B) Everything and everyone has to stick to the rules - but the rules for PCs are not necessarily the same as for the rest of the world. Even human NPCs might know tricks you can never learn, and do stuff that you never can do.
This is the paradigm of 4E and 5E.

C) The DM can do pretty much whatever the hells she wants. The "rules are suggestions" school.
Obviously, proponents of this school are at diametral odds with those of the (A) denomination.

My favourite game paradigm is A, but after some experience with 5E I have also come to terms with B. However, C is problematic for me. Generally I say, it's a _game_ first and foremost, a game needs _rules_, and if some players are bound by these rules while others (i.e. the DM) are not, it becomes a farce.
When I play a 3.X game, I expect paradigm A to apply. If the DM insists on deviating from it, I want to know about that beforehand. Then I will decide on a case by case basis if I want to play in this game at all.

[Genth]

This depends a lot on the relationship you have with your players. If they're very system-savvy, if they care about the behind-the-scenes, or if they have competition spirit (seeing fights as a direct building and strategy contest between the party and the DM), any and all of those might be perceived as cheating. If, on the other hand, players trust you to do what is necessary to have balanced encounters and an engaging story, any and all of those are fine.

I'm glad that I feel I am trusted there, and for most games I GM, I'm clear that I am a narrative-focused GM rather than seeing myself in competition with the players, and I select players who enjoy that kind of game.


For example, players won't blame me for beefing up a monster - they know that I tweak things and that conversely, if I see a monster that I deem under-CR'd, I'll nerf it in the interest of a fair challenge. But there're a couple caveats:
- the NPC's benefits should be mostly offensive rather than defensive. If you negate the PC's abilities by giving a monster immunity to something out of nowhere, it's unfair. If you're gonna give them an immunity, at least have a good explanation for it.
- Be sure of what you're doing. Because if your monster ends up overpowered and starts killing the PCs in unforeseen ways, two things can happen: they'll either feel cheated, or you'll tweak it back by fudging rolls, adjusting HP totals on the fly, etc., which I sometimes ended up doing, but it's a bad situation for a DM to be in - because at that point, even though you're trying to be fair, you're just adjusting combat to your liking, and there's not much point to rolling anymore.

Both good advice.



1) How would your players even know these villains don't meet all the prereqs for something? Are they reading their statblocks? That's considered metagaming. They wouldn't know, unless they are particularly savvy and figure it out card-counting style, but I was not so concerned with players reactions as to the 'ethics' of it.

2) Antagonists don't have to follow the same rules the PCs do. Maybe yours was chosen by Asmodeus' herald to become a Hellknight without meeting the reqs, or he took a trip to the 6th circle and drank from a cursed pool. The whole point of villains is that they're willing to do some things that the protagonists aren't.

My thoughts exactly, and there are *always* narrative reasons for these NPCs to be different.

[Genth]

Basically there are, humm, three different philosophies here that are at odds with each other:

A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

A side-question on this point - several rules for monster categories include the rule 'Are proficient with whatever weapon they are listed as holding' - now do you take this to mean that in the game world these creatures can pick up any weapon and are immediately proficient with it, or do you see it as a 'the GM can give them a weapon and they're proficient' rule?

[Psyren]

Basically there are, humm, three different philosophies here that are at odds with each other:

A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

B) Everything and everyone has to stick to the rules - but the rules for PCs are not necessarily the same as for the rest of the world. Even human NPCs might know tricks you can never learn, and do stuff that you never can do.
This is the paradigm of 4E and 5E.

I would argue that (B) is found in 3.P plenty as well. Monsters are given all kinds of arbitrary "Do The Thing (Ex/Su): Break one or more of the rules" abilities; especially the BBEG. And if the ability isn't innate, it comes from something else that the PCs aren't meant to access, like an artifact or template. The more rules-heavy titles like 3.5 and PF can use just as much handwavium as their lighter successors, they just spell it out more.

[Firechanter]

Been meaning to give an example. Not something that happened to me, but someone else's group. Level 1, very first encounter, by the book strictly "warmup" type -- 3 bandits plus one level 1 ranger or so. Having played the same adventure, I can say that the encounter was totally easy-peasy. To begin with, the encounter is scripted so that the bandits are surprised by the PCs, and totally didn't see it coming.
In the game in question, the Bandits (which were not Bandits but Slayers) were completely aware of every little detail about the PCs. How? Well the DM said that the Boss had a Falcon as pet who scouted out the area and gave a detailed report beforehand.
And here I call bull****, complete and utter bull****. A pet that can scout, count, discriminate details about humanoids, and tell all about it -- no lowlevel pet can do that - not by Paradigm A. In fact, it takes a 9th level Druid to pull that off (the pet needs to be Awakened). So if you think this would be fair under Paradigm B - does a 9th level Druid sound fair as Miniboss for a 1st-level party? Hell it doesn't.

(The DM piled on a few more shovels of bs, which however are beyond the scope of this thread. Suffice it to say that the first PC died before he even rolled initiative. If I had been in that game, I would have gotten off my chair, ripped up my character sheet, and left.)


A side-question on this point - several rules for monster categories include the rule 'Are proficient with whatever weapon they are listed as holding' - now do you take this to mean that in the game world these creatures can pick up any weapon and are immediately proficient with it, or do you see it as a 'the GM can give them a weapon and they're proficient' rule?

Well, if they picked up a weapon that was just lying around, they wouldn't necessarily be proficient in it. It's clearly meant to be the second option, to make this simpler and more user-friendly.

[Psyren]

In fact, it takes a 9th level Druid to pull that off (the pet needs to be Awakened). So if you think this would be fair under Paradigm B - does a 9th level Druid sound fair as Miniboss for a 1st-level party? Hell it doesn't.

What you're talking about here is a completely different issue though. It's not merely "giving the enemy a custom/unique ability" that was the problem, rather it was "the enemy's ability raised its CR to overwhelming difficulty" that was the problem. What the falcon power did was equivalent to giving the enemy bandits Guaranteed Surprise, At-Will Ex Scrying, and other things and expecting its CR to be unaffected. That would be a problem no matter which edition of D&D you were playing.

My point was that unique abilities for the bad guys can show up in any edition - not that said abilities have no impact on challenge rating.

[Firechanter]

Yes, totally with you there. That's what a sensible DM should have done.
As far as I gathered, the DM there just took a Hunter's pet and ignored the rules and limitations of said pet. So in short, he went for neither A nor B but opted for door C - "the DM can damn well do whatever the **** he wants". And did so not to create a fun and challenging encounter, but - in this particular case, as was revealed later - because he was holding a grudge against one of the players from a previous game. Incidentally, the player who died before he got to roll initiative, surprise surprise.
(The Slayers the DM was using instead of the NPC bandits had all Studied him as their Target and focused fire on him in their surprise round. So unsurprisingly, the character was not just knocked out, but Negative-Conscore-Hitpoints d-e-a-d.)

[Darth Ultron]

Basically there are, humm, three different philosophies here that are at odds with each other:


You have the Odd Idea that the DM has to follow the rules, yet the DM can do anything and follow the rules....so how does that work in your view?

For example, a DM can give any npc or monster any class, feat, spell or item. So this ''follows'' the rules, but it is still the DM doing anything. So it's not ''the goblin can shoot fire for 10d6 damage at will because I'm the DM'', but more ''the goblin has a wand of fireballs''.



A side-question on this point - several rules for monster categories include the rule 'Are proficient with whatever weapon they are listed as holding' - now do you take this to mean that in the game world these creatures can pick up any weapon and are immediately proficient with it, or do you see it as a 'the GM can give them a weapon and they're proficient' rule?

The second one.

It's not such a big deal to give a monster a feat. Just one of a dozen class levels will give them that too.

[Alent]

You have the Odd Idea that the DM has to follow the rules, yet the DM can do anything and follow the rules....so how does that work in your view?

For example, a DM can give any npc or monster any class, feat, spell or item. So this ''follows'' the rules, but it is still the DM doing anything. So it's not ''the goblin can shoot fire for 10d6 damage at will because I'm the DM'', but more ''the goblin has a wand of fireballs''.

I kind of agree with what Darth is getting at, here. I don't mind Rules flubbing as long as it uses Firechanter's "A" pattern in spirit. D&D isn't a perfect information game, the players don't truly know "everything" about your world, and as DM your job is to give them a window into it.

That said... By mutual agreement you're using the rules of a system to provide a common reference point that assists in the act of sharing the world- so everything within the universe should follow that "pattern of physics" and things that need to take place outside of it should still adhere as closely to it in spirit as possible, much in the same way as the Goblin with a partially charged wand of fireballs or a boss that's supercharged with lots of temporary HP from sacrificing virgins to his evil god/torturing unrepentant sinners in the name of the light.

The plausibility is what's important here. All flubs should follow the same "pattern of the rules" as the legitimate rules, so that the players recognize it as following the pattern and think "I don't know what this is, yet". That "yet" is the important part, because it will give them ideas and make them think. It's all the better if there is actually a legitimate way or twelve to do it, because if a player thinks something looks fun they can turn around and build it later. (Possibly doing a good enough job you crib their optimization notes for future boss fights.)

As to whether it's good or bad... The D&D rulebooks are full of advice that the DM should go off book, refluff, homebrew, etc. as needed to keep his story interesting. Some of these pieces of advice are blank checks that say things like "The DM can use this idea for building a variant if he wants" like Unarmed and Arcane Swordsages. Make of that what you will. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

You have the Odd Idea that the DM has to follow the rules, yet the DM can do anything and follow the rules....so how does that work in your view?

For example, a DM can give any npc or monster any class, feat, spell or item. So this ''follows'' the rules, but it is still the DM doing anything. So it's not ''the goblin can shoot fire for 10d6 damage at will because I'm the DM'', but more ''the goblin has a wand of fireballs''.

We're talking past each other a bit though. The problem is not "the DM can give the monsters any item, ability, or other advantage" - that's an obvious and even expected part of the game. Where DMs frequently run into trouble is when they think "nothing I give to this monster makes it any harder or less fair a challenge for the PCs to face."

Basically, if you're going to modify a monster you need to be smart enough to know the effects of doing so, and know whether those effects make that monster no longer an appropriate opponent for your players in their current state (in either direction.)

[NichG]

Generally I:

- Upfront tell players that I'm not building out adversaries in detail, but that I stat things more or less on the fly based on experience as to what the numbers generally look like at a given power level. In addition, abilities are authored on the spot based on theme and lore associated with that particular thing.

- Introduce such a large number of ways in the setting for stats/abilities/etc to become non-standard that it would be hard to argue just by the numbers that a given stat combination should be intrinsically impossible according to the 'physics' of the setting. PCs get to take advantage of a chunk of these as well.

Basically, everyone gets to break the rules when it comes to builds; its just a question of in-character choices and actions that determine how much and in what ways. If someone really needs an extra feat or to break skill rank caps so they can get early entry into a PrC or whatever, there's guaranteed to be some in-character way to pursue that - its just a matter of what's the corresponding cost/tradeoff.

[Zanos]

PCs and monsters using mostly the same rules is one of the few strengths of the system, so I don't make NPCS builds that wouldn't be legal for player characters. If I was really pressed to make something work I might make something custom, but I wouldn't deny PCS access to it if they were interested. A paladin probably isn't super interested in a magical location that immerses you in demon blood for toughness as a bonus feat, but I wouldn't just blanket say that they can't have it.

The rules for customizing monsters are already pretty generous, honestly, and you can create some truly stupid challenges by abusing nonassociated class levels and races/templates having comparatively low CR adjustments are compared to LA.

Edit: Had my 3.5 hat on. General philosophy still applies to PF, though.

[BWR]

The most important thing in a game is having fun and an integral part of this is, to my mind, trust between players and GM. As long the players feel that the GM is doing right by them, the details of the mechanics aren't important. The players need to feel they can trust me to play fair within the boundaries of the setting and point of the game, and give them interesting events to work with. For some games and groups, this might involve strict adherence to to any and all rules, and for others it doesn't really matter what the rules are. It's a good idea to talk to the players before the game starts to see what they feel about the topic. Most of my friends would say as long as the game is fun and they don't feel entirely impotent, it's OK if I flub a bit on the outskirts of the system. PCs, after all, have the deck stacked in their favor already so letting the opposition have a few goodies isn't a bad thing.

[Tuvarkz]

- Dropping extra hit points on an enemy in a crude way of bulking them up.


Makes sense, seen how much damage die a well-optimized melee can deal in a single round, and bulking up is often a necessary, although I'd suggest beginning with just maximizing their hit die.



- A Rogue in a NPC party led by a Dread Vanguard Antipaladin getting Shatter Defenses without the prerequisites, since the Antipaladin can give the shaken condition on a wider scale. This party has been trained for a long time to help and assist eachother, so taking advantage of one anothers abilities like that makes sense.

- Straight up giving an NPC 5 levels in Hellknight Commander without meeting the Prestige Class' prerequisites.


No to the former, the Rogue NPC should qualify for the feat on his own, particularly because flanking is a thing too. Regarding the latter, why not just have the NPC take a Fighter level first? Should make him meet all the necessary prereqs, and won't bump up his difficulty in any significative form.



- Giving a group of Fighters who are entirely trained with a particular exotic weapon the weapon proficiency for free.

Sure, makes sense, particularly because PF exotic weapons aren't worth the feat, there's plenty of racials that give something akin to it, and cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stones are a thing (and a cheap one at that).

[Darth Ultron]

this might involve strict adherence to to any and all rules

I really wonder about this type of odd player. That they are going to slam the rule book down on the table and say ''ok, DM, you can only do what this book says you can do'', is just crazy. It's worse to think that the players will either revisers engine everything they encounter or demand to see all the DM's notes. You would not even be playing a game then....


But, ok, lets say the DM ''agrees to follow the rules'', so does this mean the DM can't add something to the game? Like say the DM wants to have a pool of healing that cures some damage once a day. Well the Pathfinder books and website don't have a chapter/web page on ''magic pools''. So does this mean ''by the rules'' the DM can't make a magical pool? Or can the DM make one, and have it do whatever they want?

And it's interesting to note lots of adventures have such ''odd, non-rule'' things in them....

[Firechanter]

Of course you can add to the game. It's kinda beside the point.
The point is what has been said before: if you add abilities to an opponent, this needs to reflect in the CR. Sure, just swapping out feats doesn't change the CR, even if you replace Skill Focus Basketweaving with Quicken Spell. But think of requirements. If a feat has a prereq of BAB 11+, a CR3 opponent shouldn't have it. If a spell does more than a 5th level spell (i.e. CL9), a level 3 NPC should not have access to it. If a magic item would cost 50.000GP to make, that's way beyond the WBL of a 6th level NPC. And so on.
Nothing says you can't do it. You just have to adjust the CR accordingly. And if the stuff you intend to pile onto your CR5 NPC would add up to increase the CR to 10, you should probably think again.

Not that all Bestiary monsters are correctly CRed, of course. But I think we can all agree that a CR1 or 2 NPC that you intend to toss at a level 1 party should not have powers of a CR8 character.

edit:
And it should go without saying, but if you invent new abilities and give them to your mobs, you need to assess how powerful they really are. Find something that is comparable and go from there.

[martixy]

I kind of agree with what Darth is getting at, here. I don't mind Rules flubbing as long as it uses Firechanter's "A" pattern in spirit. D&D isn't a perfect information game, the players don't truly know "everything" about your world, and as DM your job is to give them a window into it.

That said... By mutual agreement you're using the rules of a system to provide a common reference point that assists in the act of sharing the world- so everything within the universe should follow that "pattern of physics" and things that need to take place outside of it should still adhere as closely to it in spirit as possible, much in the same way as the Goblin with a partially charged wand of fireballs or a boss that's supercharged with lots of temporary HP from sacrificing virgins to his evil god/torturing unrepentant sinners in the name of the light.

The plausibility is what's important here. All flubs should follow the same "pattern of the rules" as the legitimate rules, so that the players recognize it as following the pattern and think "I don't know what this is, yet". That "yet" is the important part, because it will give them ideas and make them think. It's all the better if there is actually a legitimate way or twelve to do it, because if a player thinks something looks fun they can turn around and build it later. (Possibly doing a good enough job you crib their optimization notes for future boss fights.)

As to whether it's good or bad... The D&D rulebooks are full of advice that the DM should go off book, refluff, homebrew, etc. as needed to keep his story interesting. Some of these pieces of advice are blank checks that say things like "The DM can use this idea for building a variant if he wants" like Unarmed and Arcane Swordsages. Make of that what you will. :smallamused:

I agree with every point here. There is a certain amount of predictability I look for in the game and you can't have that without a universal set of rules.
I think that's the key word you were looking for, not "plausibility".

[Gnaeus]

Our group generally faces monsters with above average or max HP. We feel this is a reasonable compromise with the fact that our PCs generally have optimization levels above most monsters, even after the DM switches out junk feats.

We do prefer that NPCs use the same rules as players. I wouldn't object to a team of NPC fighters getting a free EWP feat, if they have a training manual nearby that our fighter could spend a month reading that gave him the same feat.

[Dezea]

About flubbing the rules, I got that philosophy that all that really matters is to tell a great story, and make your player feel that they are the primary force of it.

Cheating can indeed help with the story making. It's always more fun for the vilain to get unusual set of abilities, and can be really entertaining, instead of just being your "Usual" conjurer 20 with a contingency ready. Thus, It can be a great tool. But.

But, the part that matter even more to me, is the "Make your player feel that they are the primary force of it". And if they get the impression that whatever they do doesn't matter, since you'll always fudge or bend the rules to accomodate the story, they stop being actor to be glorified NPCs. And this feeling does indeed sux.

So, TL;DR : Cheating is a tool. As every tools it should be used when needed, where needed, with precision and experience.
TL;DR² : Cheating can be like using a screwdriver to punch a nail in your wall : Don't do it.

(And btw, i'm french, forgive me for my english)

[NichG]

I agree with every point here. There is a certain amount of predictability I look for in the game and you can't have that without a universal set of rules.
I think that's the key word you were looking for, not "plausibility".

There's a difference though. One situation involves a player seeing something and saying 'I should have known that was possible' in retrospect. Another situation involves a player seeing something and concluding 'I need to go find out how to do that'.

'Plausible' is softer than 'predictable' in that without actually seeing evidence of the thing in game, there's no reason why the player would actually pursue that line of thought. Another way to put it is, with 'predictable' there isn't actually any information flowing from the game to the player (they could have known ahead of time, they just didn't) but with 'plausible' there can actually be things that the player had no way of knowing but where once they know, options open up.

I'd tend to say that a player's character abilities should be 'predictable' but other things in the game should first be 'plausible' and only after the players pursue them become truly 'predictable'. Continued player attention towards something is the cue that it needs to be solidified to a greater degree because there's an intent to make use of it, whereas solidifying everything from the start is wasteful (in terms of prep, but also in terms of overloading the players' attention with too much information)

[BWR]

I really wonder about this type of odd player. That they are going to slam the rule book down on the table and say ''ok, DM, you can only do what this book says you can do'', is just crazy. It's worse to think that the players will either revisers engine everything they encounter or demand to see all the DM's notes. You would not even be playing a game then....


But, ok, lets say the DM ''agrees to follow the rules'', so does this mean the DM can't add something to the game? Like say the DM wants to have a pool of healing that cures some damage once a day. Well the Pathfinder books and website don't have a chapter/web page on ''magic pools''. So does this mean ''by the rules'' the DM can't make a magical pool? Or can the DM make one, and have it do whatever they want?

And it's interesting to note lots of adventures have such ''odd, non-rule'' things in them....

Why go strictly by the book? Ask someone with severe OCD.

I suspect this mentality in large part comes about from the trust thing I mentioned and perceptions of fairness. Everybody should play by the rules, and not following them is cheating.
A friend of mine got some of his students into D&D and they all have behavioral and learning problems, including a couple with moderate-plus autism, and according to him they were all very insistent that things go by the book. Things are allowed or not, Things are right or wrong. It helps cut down on arguing and prevents things from getting out of hand, It was, I believe, their way of getting a grip on the game and the situation and feeling in control. Last I heard they were having a blast.

Different strokes for different folks, and as long as everyone is having fun, the game is working as intended.

[Dagroth]

When my character dies... that's when its too far.

[Jay R]

My answer to the OP is that none of his examples cross the line for me, and in my mind, it would only be too far if it affected my actions in the game. If I take action based on knowledge that this enemy couldn't use a glaive, and then he can use it, then I might get annoyed. And even that has some limits. My assumption at the start of the fight is that this person or monster is unknown to my character unless we've fought them in the past. So finding out it has an ability I had no knowledge of is part of the exploratory nature of adventuring.

But I started with original D&D and then went to AD&D, so I assume that the DM can make unique rules for his or her game.

I see that some people are basing answers on an assumption that I don't believe is established.


A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

Can you provide a citation from the rulebooks or an official statement from WotC or the authors directly that clearly states that this is the paradigm that 3.5 is built on?

In the other direction, I can point to the 3.5e DMG:


You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely.


Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel.

That seems to make it clear (to me) that the DM can change or overturn any rule, but that a good one will only do it with the right justification. [And so my response to the OP is to have a good reason for any change he introduces.]

I'm not saying I know I'm right and you're wrong. I am saying I've found clear evidence in favor of the notion that the DM can change the rules in 3.5e, and I haven't found any evidence that he or she can't.

If you have some evidence supporting your belief that the 3.5e rules are universal, and can't be changed, will you share it?

[dude123nice]

The problem with most of the examples the DM has given is that i don't feel he needs to cheat in those situations, witch seems to indicate that he is just can't be bothered to put some effort into building the encounters. And that really would be a problem for me and for a lot of other players, I bet. More precisely:

-as far as i know you can give an NPC what stats you like so if you want him to have extra hit points just give him extra Constitution
-if hell knights are going to feature in your campaigning you can just tell your players that the requirements for the class seem excessive to you and that you are toning them down, for both players and NPCs. This way you avoid making them feel cheated
-between all the traits, alternate racial traits and archetypes available I'm pretty sure you can get Exotic Weapon focus almost for free without breaking the rules
-the shatter defenses rogue example I could almost understand if it was a low level adventure and the rogues NPCs couldn't qualify for the feat, but considering that you can have a character with 5 levels of a prestige class then a level 8 rogue seems to be within the bounds of the adventure. If your original was was to have multiple lover level rogues then you can just replace them with fever 8 level ones.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If you have some evidence supporting your belief that the 3.5e rules are universal, and can't be changed, will you share it?
Hang on, that's not what Firechanter wrote. Here's the actual quote:


A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

Firechanter's categorization is not about the mutability of rules. As long as your rule changes affect PCs and NPCs alike, you are squarely within category A. You only start leaving category A when you start changing rules for one group only*. In 3.5/PF, the baseline assumption is that a rule affects PCs and NPCs, unless otherwise specified. For example, if you change the "medium" base attack progression to 13/19 (because prime numbers are just better, okay?), that'll change Abberations, Animals, Humanoids, Oozes, Plants, Undead, and Vermin the same as bard, cleric, druid, monk, and rogue (and PCs and NPCs with any of those HD will be changed the same way, by losing (3/4-13/19) bab/HD). Hence, category A by default, but a DM may always change to B or C, as per rule 0.



*Groups = {PC, notPC}.

[Darth Ultron]

Firechanter's categorization is not about the mutability of rules. As long as your rule changes affect PCs and NPCs alike, you are squarely within category A. You only start leaving category A when you start changing rules for one group only

I guess this sounds good, but how does it work exactly? Like say the DM says ''undead get one bonus feat per hit die''. None of the PC's are undead, so it does not effect them. And a DM can do this hundreds of times for hundred of things, and none of them will effect the PCs.

So is it good enough that....theoretically....if the player had a character that would be effected by a rule change then they would get to take advantage of that rule change, enough?

[Jay R]

Hang on, that's not what Firechanter wrote.

No, but it's implied by it.


Firechanter's categorization is not about the mutability of rules. As long as your rule changes affect PCs and NPCs alike, you are squarely within category A.

This is a restriction on the DM's power that is not justified, based on the quotes I gave from the 3.5 rules.


You only start leaving category A when you start changing rules for one group only*. In 3.5/PF, the baseline assumption is that a rule affects PCs and NPCs, unless otherwise specified.

"Unless otherwise specified" also contradicts Firestarter's statement that "The rules are universal. They are the 'physics' of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions."


Hence, category A by default, but a DM may always change to B or C, as per rule 0.

Which, again, is a direct violation of Firestarter's statement that the rules are universal and the physics of the game world, and that NPCs and monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions. [Emphasis mine.]

Firestarter is saying that the NPCs must be bound by the same rules as the PCs. You are saying that that can be changed by the DM. Your position, just as much as mine, disagrees with Firestarter's.

If Firestarter wasn't opposed to rule zero, then I read him incorrectly - which is certainly possible, but you haven't made a case for it.

[Firechanter]

I guess this sounds good, but how does it work exactly? Like say the DM says ''undead get one bonus feat per hit die''. None of the PC's are undead, so it does not effect them. And a DM can do this hundreds of times for hundred of things, and none of them will effect the PCs.

Well, the general rule is "a creature gets one feat for their first Hit Die and and another for every n HD. More feats can only be added as bonus feats from class levels".
Generally, 3.X is extremely flexible, because basically you can _always_ think up some feat or template that does what you want, if it doesn't already exist anyway. So basically a DM doesn't _need_ to flub the rules, because the rules offer plenty of ways to pull off a given trick anyway.
Since monsters can have all kinds of unique tricks anyway, maybe let's focus on humanoid NPCs forthwith.

So, maybe a better comparison:
In 3.X, a creature gains iterative attacks at BAB +6, +11, +16, and each iterative has a cumulative -5 penalty. There are some feats (TWF), class abilities (Flurry of Misses) and spells or spell-likes (Haste) that add more attacks outside this pattern, and there are special rules for natural attacks. But basically this is your toolbox.
So when you create a humanoid opponent with 3HD, there is absolutely no way in the rules for him to attack twice per round with a single weapon (say, Greatsword) at +3 BAB, without using one of the options that are also open to PCs (like Haste or maybe a ToB Maneuver etc).

In 5E on the other hand, exactly that is possible. PCs only get a second attack at 5th level of certain classes. But there _are_ pre-made NPCs that do exactly that -- attack twice with a longsword (not TWFing) while they have 3HD. They do it all the time, but the PCs can never pick up the same trick before level 5.


That said, and it only really occurs to me now -- there is one aspect of the game mechanics where probably many, if not most groups do exempt NPCs from the normal rules, and that's crafting. As per the 3.X rules, it takes several months to craft a Full Plate and each one has to be custom-made for the wearer. Ain't nobody got time for that. So if you commission something -- be it weapon, armour or magic item -- it's probably done in a couple of days, whereas it would take a Crafter PC several weeks or months. BUT the PCs could craft it themselves, and in some games they do.

Again, 5E takes this further -- here the craft rules for mundane items are so ridonculous that it would have been more honest if they had just said "PCs cannot craft stuff". For reference, a suit of Plate Armour would take a PC not one, not two, not three but TEN MONTHS of nonstop work to make, no weekends off. And there are no rules for magic item crafting at all -- PCs are just not supposed to do it, end of story.

[Dagroth]

I guess this sounds good, but how does it work exactly? Like say the DM says ''undead get one bonus feat per hit die''. None of the PC's are undead, so it does not effect them. And a DM can do this hundreds of times for hundred of things, and none of them will effect the PCs.

So is it good enough that....theoretically....if the player had a character that would be effected by a rule change then they would get to take advantage of that rule change, enough?

Well, in a way it would affect them.

After all, if someone played a Dread Necromancer he would be significantly more powerful if all his undead got one bonus feat per hit die.

If you made animals tougher without changing their actual hit dice, Druids would be more powerful.

If you made Devils & Demons more powerful without changing their actual hit dice, Planar Binding becomes more powerful.

And so-on.

[Coretron03]

It would also make necropoltians really good, Sacrifice some exp for tons of feats? Hell yeah.

[ExLibrisMortis]

No, but it's implied by it.
It's not. You're the only person thinking that. You're confusing "universal" - applying equally to all - and "immutable" - unchanging. The rest of your post is based on misunderstanding as well.


@Darth Ultron: The groups are OOC groups. Giving all undead a bonus feat is fine. It's a group defined in-universe, so you, or the players, can research this thing in-universe, and maybe even come up with an in-universe justification, and the consistency of the universe will not suffer. If none of the PCs are undead, it's still fair. Because your rules apply to both PCs and NPCs, your players will expect that bonus feat if they undergo the Ritual of Crucimigration. That makes the ritual more attractive, as a consequence of your houserule combined with the basic assumption that PCs get that rule, too.

If you don't grant that bonus feat after all, because PC undead are different from NPC undead, you're slipping into B (if you restrict it for PCs only) or C (if you restrict it for any other group, such as 'characters built on the 17th of any month' - this as an extreme example of a DM doing whatever they want). The consistency of your universe changes: it now becomes possible to determine in-universe who is a lead character (doesn't get a feat from RoCM) and a supporting character (does get a feat from RoCM). Personally, I prefer to keep that distinction OOC, so I'd consider that a deterioration of the consistency of the universe.

Of course, as long as a rule has no exceptions, you know what you're dealing with. A consistent PC/NPC distinction allows you to predict what you're dealing with in character building. A whimsy cat-C DM does not.

[NichG]

The problem with most of the examples the DM has given is that i don't feel he needs to cheat in those situations, witch seems to indicate that he is just can't be bothered to put some effort into building the encounters. And that really would be a problem for me and for a lot of other players, I bet.

It's the wrong kind of effort. Consider that even an average player in a campaign spanning Lv5 to Lv10 probably spends on the order of 10 hours thinking about the mechanics of their character over the course of the campaign so far. That includes things like managing wealth, taking loot distributions, etc. In exchange (if we assume a level every 4 sessions of 4 hours each) they get 80 hours of gameplay out of that. Players will as a result be very aware of the mechanical options available to their character, and will tend to be attached to their character since it represents a significant amount of work on their part.

A DM has to build one or more characters for a given 4 hour session. Furthermore, it's specifically important for the DM to not get attached to their NPCs - one way or another, most NPCs should never receive more than a few hours of screen time. So building NPCs the same way players build PCs is wasteful and encourages bad habits like DMPCs, railroading to save a lavishly detailed boss, etc.

[Quertus]

Basically there are, humm, three different philosophies here that are at odds with each other:

A) The rules are universal. They are the "physics" of the game world. NPCs and Monsters are bound by the same rules and exceptions.
This is the paradigm that 3.X/PF are built on.

B) Everything and everyone has to stick to the rules - but the rules for PCs are not necessarily the same as for the rest of the world. Even human NPCs might know tricks you can never learn, and do stuff that you never can do.
This is the paradigm of 4E and 5E.

C) The DM can do pretty much whatever the hells she wants. The "rules are suggestions" school.
Obviously, proponents of this school are at diametral odds with those of the (A) denomination.

My favourite game paradigm is A, but after some experience with 5E I have also come to terms with B. However, C is problematic for me. Generally I say, it's a _game_ first and foremost, a game needs _rules_, and if some players are bound by these rules while others (i.e. the DM) are not, it becomes a farce.
When I play a 3.X game, I expect paradigm A to apply. If the DM insists on deviating from it, I want to know about that beforehand. Then I will decide on a case by case basis if I want to play in this game at all.

Everyone seems to feel that A (we all play by RAW) and A' (we all play by whatever modifications are made to the rules) are equivalent. But, because of the way you worded B, allow me to mention B' - Everything and everyone has to stick to the rules - but the rules for PCs are not necessarily the same as for the rest of the world. The PCs are special. They have abilities that the lowly NPCs can never learn, and do stuff they can never do.

I decidedly prefer A, A', or B'.

If you aren't using an understandable rules set, it greatly reduces the value of thinking, planning, evaluating, exploration. Which, in turn, will greatly reduce the fun of the game, for me.

But the question is, what do your players want out of the game? Do they care about the gritty details, having challenging encounters, being BDHs, always winning? Do they want to feel special, change the world, tell a good story, fight a series of level-appropriate battles? The answers to these questions will help you determine what the right answer is for your group.

Know your players.


PCs and monsters using mostly the same rules is one of the few strengths of the system,

Hear, hear!

Wait, few? :smallconfused:


In 5E on the other hand, exactly that is possible. PCs only get a second attack at 5th level of certain classes. But there _are_ pre-made NPCs that do exactly that -- attack twice with a longsword (not TWFing) while they have 3HD. They do it all the time, but the PCs can never pick up the same trick before level 5.

Thank you for pointing out that I would never be interested in playing 5e.

Heck, I start giving dragons epic feasts at the same time they'd get them if they were PCs, just so that we're all playing the same game. :smalltongue:

[Zanos]

Hear, hear!

Wait, few? :smallconfused:
I love 3.5, but it's deeply, deeply flawed. It fathered many concepts that most RPGs since it have done better.

[dude123nice]

It's the wrong kind of effort. Consider that even an average player in a campaign spanning Lv5 to Lv10 probably spends on the order of 10 hours thinking about the mechanics of their character over the course of the campaign so far. That includes things like managing wealth, taking loot distributions, etc. In exchange (if we assume a level every 4 sessions of 4 hours each) they get 80 hours of gameplay out of that. Players will as a result be very aware of the mechanical options available to their character, and will tend to be attached to their character since it represents a significant amount of work on their part.

A DM has to build one or more characters for a given 4 hour session. Furthermore, it's specifically important for the DM to not get attached to their NPCs - one way or another, most NPCs should never receive more than a few hours of screen time. So building NPCs the same way players build PCs is wasteful and encourages bad habits like DMPCs, railroading to save a lavishly detailed boss, etc.

There is no way it would take even close to that many hours to find the fixes I mentioned above and, once you have enough system knowledge, it would take a REALLY short time. And DMs especially should have good system knowledge. And to gain system knowledge you need experience with building a lot of characters so I think the DM should try to build these characters according to the rules to get to understand the system better.

[NichG]

There is no way it would take even close to that many hours to find the fixes I mentioned above and, once you have enough system knowledge, it would take a REALLY short time. And DMs especially should have good system knowledge. And to gain system knowledge you need experience with building a lot of characters so I think the DM should try to build these characters according to the rules to get to understand the system better.

The mistake is the assumption that the DM should be obligated to put in that time because you as a player at some point in your gaming career put in the time to do it that way. It ignores that your job as a player and the DM's job as DM are really asymmetrically different. You can quibble about the specific amount of time, but its an intrinsically unreasonable request. If you expect the DM to put the same kind of effort into building each NPC as you put into building your PC, then it'd be hypocritical to complain when the DM ends up being more interested in their NPCs than their players. That's the tradeoff. It's generally not worth it outside of things like intentionally adversarial campaigns.

[atemu1234]

C) The DM can do pretty much whatever the hells she wants. The "rules are suggestions" school.
Obviously, proponents of this school are at diametral odds with those of the (A) denomination.

Eh, not as much as you'd think. I'm of school A(C); wherein the rules of the universe are constant and apply equally to both sides - but only insofar as I, whatever omnipotent being I am, for the sake of the game, choose not to interfere. D&D has higher powers; and those powers have a higher power. That is D&D's paradigm.

[TheifofZ]

I firmly believe that if a situation is meant to be a challenge, while still remaining 'fair' some small tweaks 'behind the screen' are entirely fine; buffing monster's HP, adding bonus feats, or skipping garbage or punishing feats in a feat chain to get to the ones that are desired. However, changing the monsters entirely to change how the encounter functions overall is usually going overboard, and you should think about something like that carefully.

For example; Improved sunder is a requirement for certain PrCs. If the PCs face an NPC with that PrC, either the feat is useless vis-a-vis not destroying the PCs hard earned wealth for no reason, or the feat is punishing because you're destroying said wealth with very little measure to prevent it. I prefer to skip the feat entirely for NPCs, but don't apply the same ruling to the PCs. The feat itself is far from bad; it just shouldn't really see much use against the PCs for how punishing it can be, and so instead, I prefer to allow NPCs to skip it or swap it to something more fitting and useable.

The same with a variety of other things that go on behind the screen; if an ability is clearly directly punishing the players for playing the game or absolutely unusable, then neither is the correct choice and should be subbed out for something more suitable. To continue the example, disarming might be swapped for sundering, allowing the NPC to deprive the party of their gear without rendering it utterly unusable. Or an ability to apply a Save or Stunned effect might function similarly against the frontliners most affected by the normal sunder.

[Mordaedil]

I love 3.5, but it's deeply, deeply flawed. It fathered many concepts that most RPGs since it have done better.

As flawed as it is, I've yet to see any system with as much customization, honestly. It's very mind-boggling, probably too much for most people, but it's my favorite rules if only for the flexibility offered.

And even with that, there are things about the system I'd want changed (I don't get why the saving throw thing works the way it does, or why multiclass penalty is even necessary)

[TheifofZ]

As flawed as it is, I've yet to see any system with as much customization, honestly. It's very mind-boggling, probably too much for most people, but it's my favorite rules if only for the flexibility offered.

And even with that, there are things about the system I'd want changed (I don't get why the saving throw thing works the way it does, or why multiclass penalty is even necessary)

Many of the flaws come from the amount of flexible content there is. It just so happens that being able to bend reality in 5 different separate ways come together to shatter it completely in a single, entirely unexpected consequence.

The saving throw thing? Which part?

[Agahnim]

(This whole thread is TL;DR so this has probably already been said)
As the GM, it is not only your right but also your job to tweak the rules in order to make sure the everyone has fun. Consider, however, that for most of the examples you gave, the result you wished for could be achieved within the rules. For example, instead of adding free HP to a monster, you could increase its HD, have a lesser monster help it, give it a potion of false life, etc.
That being said, sometimes you just can't do it by the book. I once granted a villain 2 extra HP just so he could fight for one more round. I knew it wouldn't change the outcome (it would have been unfair), but I didn't want the PCs' victory to feel cheap as it was a boss encounter (and an encounter they weren't even supposed to win in the first place - but that's what makes D&D fun!).

[Mordaedil]

Many of the flaws come from the amount of flexible content there is. It just so happens that being able to bend reality in 5 different separate ways come together to shatter it completely in a single, entirely unexpected consequence.

The saving throw thing? Which part?

I dunno, maybe it'd be better if they dropped class based system entirely, but I still like it better than other system for the flexibility. That's just my take on it though.

As for the saving throw thing, I never got the logic behind getting (effectively) 2½ points to the class strong save the first time you take a level in a new class. Do that enough times and you can end up with an excessively high saving throw modifier, just from multiclassing in a samey class.

[Professor Chimp]

I guess I'm a School B DM.

Within our group, I share DM duties with a friend, and our campaigns take place in the same setting. Since the other people besides us are relatively novice, we have agreed to limit the books PCs can use to Core and a selection of splat books, which we've gradually widened as players became more experienced. Us DMs though, we can pick stuff from any and all books for our NPCs without restruction, under the agreement that we do it for flavour, not optimization. So, in this respect, NPCs operate under different rules by having access to more of them.

We also sometimes bend or break the rules in minor ways, like a free proficiency in a flavorful exotic weapon, or giving access to a fluffy PrC even though the NPC is short a few ranks in skill x. Again, more to make characters fun and flavorful than to optimize.

[Quertus]

I love 3.5, but it's deeply, deeply flawed. It fathered many concepts that most RPGs since it have done better.


As flawed as it is, I've yet to see any system with as much customization, honestly. It's very mind-boggling, probably too much for most people, but it's my favorite rules if only for the flexibility offered.

And even with that, there are things about the system I'd want changed (I don't get why the saving throw thing works the way it does, or why multiclass penalty is even necessary)

There being flaws, or ways to do things better, is irrelevant to the count of how many things it does well.

Just for things that give it accessibility and replay value over a broad audience, off the top of my head, we have:

* huge variety of supported character concepts. :biggrin:
* EDIT: copious amounts of existing content to support different character concepts is technically separate from how many concepts it supports.
* most known/popular concepts are readily available (nothing named "hobbits", though).
* similarity within a named concept*.
* variety within a named concept*.
* huge range of playable power levels.
* Lots of existing, content-rich settings with diverse feel.
* readily allows for custom content - in fact, encourages custom classes in custom settings, has rules sections for custom monsters & custom spells, etc.
* no minimal baked-in role-playing rules (alignment :smallfrown:).
* good, intuitive stat/roll mechanics (high numbers are good, you want to roll high).
* easy to grasp concepts
* easy and intuitive enough that I've taught multiple 7-year-olds to play it competently.

Yet still has this universal set of rules that everyone is playing by, to make the game accessible and understandable.

* unlike in point buy, when I say I'm playing a "ranger", that has some inherent meaning. Yet, at the same time, two different rangers can be very different.


Consider, however, that for most of the examples you gave, the result you wished for could be achieved within the rules.

This. Why cheat at poker when you've already got a winning hand?

[Ualaa]

Through my 3.x days, the system basically wanted justification for a build.

So by the rules, I wanted an adversary that had an ability, the system wanted me to build one that legitimately had that ability.

I had the option of fluffing something, but in general did not.



One of my friends used to alternate DM/Playing with me, from our AD&D 2nd edition days through 4th edition, but he no longer plays.

His solution was that the NPC was supposed to be tough, so they just didn't record hit point damage no matter what the PCs did, made their saves or whatever... for say six rounds -- whatever damage we had inflicted to this point took it to half, and it had as many hit points remaining as those six rounds of serious damage.

If we went light for four rounds, then maybe the NPC wouldn't hit half health until ten or fifteen rounds into the fight.

He kind of judged how much the opposition could take.



When we switched to fourth edition...

The system had a monster manual, with example mobs at various challenge ratings.

But it also had the whole you can throw six mobs at a group of six PCs, and make them two Brutes and four Artillery types, where a Brute has Level + xx for this stat and Level + xx for that stat, while an Artillery has something else.

Their various types could be quickly made on the fly, and then you would fluff them to appear as whatever, so the Brute might be their dumb Ogres, while the Soldier might be their crafty War Troll and the Artillery were the Goblins in the back.

There was no need to build anything, just pick roles and decide that the group is level six, and this is supposed to be a winnable but hard fight, so make the mobs level nine and their defenses are 9 + xx.



When we switched to Pathfinder, I use a hybrid of the two rules, at least as far as mob design goes.

It's a lot closer to the 3.x system, than the 4th edition system was. I kind of miss 4e in regards to the ease of making adversaries.

But if I want a tougher mob, that is monk like... It's not that hard to give it Deflect Arrows and increase it's dodge bonus to AC (so Touch and Full, but not Flat-Footed) by four or eleven.
My mobs are generally close to whatever the monster manual says, but 4e really showcased throw whatever you want at the group, provided the numbers are close to what they can handle.

[Zanos]

As flawed as it is, I've yet to see any system with as much customization, honestly. It's very mind-boggling, probably too much for most people, but it's my favorite rules if only for the flexibility offered.

And even with that, there are things about the system I'd want changed (I don't get why the saving throw thing works the way it does, or why multiclass penalty is even necessary)
I' m still here posting on the 3.5 forum and playing 3.5 games, aren't I?

HEROES and other "everything costs build points" systems offer quite a bit more customization and range of character concepts, while also being simpler. I enjoy 3.5s complexity, but I think it takes a certain idiosyncratic personality to think rooting through 10-20 books to build a character is a good time.

[Klara Meison]

I really wonder about this type of odd player. That they are going to slam the rule book down on the table and say ''ok, DM, you can only do what this book says you can do'', is just crazy. It's worse to think that the players will either revisers engine everything they encounter or demand to see all the DM's notes. You would not even be playing a game then....


But, ok, lets say the DM ''agrees to follow the rules'', so does this mean the DM can't add something to the game? Like say the DM wants to have a pool of healing that cures some damage once a day. Well the Pathfinder books and website don't have a chapter/web page on ''magic pools''. So does this mean ''by the rules'' the DM can't make a magical pool? Or can the DM make one, and have it do whatever they want?

And it's interesting to note lots of adventures have such ''odd, non-rule'' things in them....

Pathfinder actually has a lot of advice on making such custom things within the general ruleset, from magic item crafting to trap creation rules. There is no reason to come up with something yourself when there are already rules in place. Likewise, because those rules exist, PCs know they can do A, B and C to re-create that magic pool, if desired.

I think that makes the world more coherent and convincing, honestly.

[martixy]

There's a difference though. One situation involves a player seeing something and saying 'I should have known that was possible' in retrospect. Another situation involves a player seeing something and concluding 'I need to go find out how to do that'.

'Plausible' is softer than 'predictable' in that without actually seeing evidence of the thing in game, there's no reason why the player would actually pursue that line of thought. Another way to put it is, with 'predictable' there isn't actually any information flowing from the game to the player (they could have known ahead of time, they just didn't) but with 'plausible' there can actually be things that the player had no way of knowing but where once they know, options open up.

I'd tend to say that a player's character abilities should be 'predictable' but other things in the game should first be 'plausible' and only after the players pursue them become truly 'predictable'. Continued player attention towards something is the cue that it needs to be solidified to a greater degree because there's an intent to make use of it, whereas solidifying everything from the start is wasteful (in terms of prep, but also in terms of overloading the players' attention with too much information)

'I should have known that was possible' in retrospect is ultimately useless to the game.
But you are correct, in a sense. "Plausibility" builds on "predictability". As the group gets comfortable with each other and the flow of the game one grows into the other.

While the prep point stands, 3.5 especially is such a vast jumble of potential knowledge that nothing you add personally would exacerbate the situation to any meaningful degree. In general the more opportunities a player has to acquire a certain bit of info, the better for the game.

It all goes back to "trust and perception of fairness" as someone mentioned. For someone, a softer approach might be enough, while others might demand more. Know your players and all that jazz.

The general vibe I get from this thread is that most agree on the key points:
* Deeply flawed
* Highly customizable
* Fudge-able enough on the fly

[Genth]

The problem with most of the examples the DM has given is that i don't feel he needs to cheat in those situations, witch seems to indicate that he is just can't be bothered to put some effort into building the encounters. And that really would be a problem for me and for a lot of other players, I bet. More precisely:

-as far as i know you can give an NPC what stats you like so if you want him to have extra hit points just give him extra Constitution
-if hell knights are going to feature in your campaigning you can just tell your players that the requirements for the class seem excessive to you and that you are toning them down, for both players and NPCs. This way you avoid making them feel cheated
-between all the traits, alternate racial traits and archetypes available I'm pretty sure you can get Exotic Weapon focus almost for free without breaking the rules
-the shatter defenses rogue example I could almost understand if it was a low level adventure and the rogues NPCs couldn't qualify for the feat, but considering that you can have a character with 5 levels of a prestige class then a level 8 rogue seems to be within the bounds of the adventure. If your original was was to have multiple lover level rogues then you can just replace them with fever 8 level ones.


It's the wrong kind of effort. Consider that even an average player in a campaign spanning Lv5 to Lv10 probably spends on the order of 10 hours thinking about the mechanics of their character over the course of the campaign so far. That includes things like managing wealth, taking loot distributions, etc. In exchange (if we assume a level every 4 sessions of 4 hours each) they get 80 hours of gameplay out of that. Players will as a result be very aware of the mechanical options available to their character, and will tend to be attached to their character since it represents a significant amount of work on their part.

A DM has to build one or more characters for a given 4 hour session. Furthermore, it's specifically important for the DM to not get attached to their NPCs - one way or another, most NPCs should never receive more than a few hours of screen time. So building NPCs the same way players build PCs is wasteful and encourages bad habits like DMPCs, railroading to save a lavishly detailed boss, etc.


There is no way it would take even close to that many hours to find the fixes I mentioned above and, once you have enough system knowledge, it would take a REALLY short time. And DMs especially should have good system knowledge. And to gain system knowledge you need experience with building a lot of characters so I think the DM should try to build these characters according to the rules to get to understand the system better.

The rest of the thread has gone off on several tangents, which is fine, I get a sense of people's thoughts on the subject, but I thought I'd better address a few things here:


- I'm planning for a 5-20 campaign, so these small tweaks are going on at a whole bunch of different levels, so just 'give the NPC a bunch more levels' defeats the entire point of what I'm asking.

- I know full well how to legally do some of those things. Assuming I don't is rather insulting, actually. As above, most solutions involve either already cheating (arbitrarily increasing a monsters stats, as there are rules about changing NPC stats) or making it so I have to make the NPC 2-3 levels higher than I want them purely to do one thing.

- Absolutely, I go by PCs can, if applicable, do the same thing as the NPCs. If a PC wanted to be a Hobgoblin, and it was likely or possible in context that they'd come from that group, I'd tell them about the EWP option.

- And if Hellknights were featuring in my campaign as anything other than antagonists, you'd have a point.

- None, I repeat NONE of the reasons I want to 'flub' is because I want to arbitrarily make enemies stronger. The only reason I want to do so is to represent in-setting intricacies. I want a group of hunters who have trained together since birth to reflect that. I want the Authoritarian Regime to have a force of Hellknight-like foes that doesn't require all of them to be high-level. There's been an assumption here that the motive is somehow antagonistic, somehow about screwing over my players, and I seriously resent that.

[Quertus]

The rest of the thread has gone off on several tangents, which is fine, I get a sense of people's thoughts on the subject, but I thought I'd better address a few things here:


- I'm planning for a 5-20 campaign, so these small tweaks are going on at a whole bunch of different levels, so just 'give the NPC a bunch more levels' defeats the entire point of what I'm asking.

- I know full well how to legally do some of those things. Assuming I don't is rather insulting, actually. As above, most solutions involve either already cheating (arbitrarily increasing a monsters stats, as there are rules about changing NPC stats) or making it so I have to make the NPC 2-3 levels higher than I want them purely to do one thing.

- Absolutely, I go by PCs can, if applicable, do the same thing as the NPCs. If a PC wanted to be a Hobgoblin, and it was likely or possible in context that they'd come from that group, I'd tell them about the EWP option.

- And if Hellknights were featuring in my campaign as anything other than antagonists, you'd have a point.

- None, I repeat NONE of the reasons I want to 'flub' is because I want to arbitrarily make enemies stronger. The only reason I want to do so is to represent in-setting intricacies. I want a group of hunters who have trained together since birth to reflect that. I want the Authoritarian Regime to have a force of Hellknight-like foes that doesn't require all of them to be high-level. There's been an assumption here that the motive is somehow antagonistic, somehow about screwing over my players, and I seriously resent that.

Resenting that is your good.

You do know that, by the books, you are not only allowed but encouraged to invent custom prestige classes for your setting, right? This really sounds like it solves most if not all your problems.

[Genth]

You do know that, by the books, you are not only allowed but encouraged to invent custom prestige classes for your setting, right? This really sounds like it solves most if not all your problems.

Yes, but that's rather... sophist, no? To explain it by "Oh, this NPC has a Rogue archetype that just gets shatter defenses as a bonus feat at this level instead of its rogue talent". The sophistry you surround it by is still, in my view, flubbing. :/

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, but that's rather... sophist, no? To explain it by "Oh, this NPC has a Rogue archetype that just gets shatter defenses as a bonus feat at this level instead of its rogue talent". The sophistry you surround it by is still, in my view, flubbing. :/

You're increasing the resources of the opponents (even if it's just trading a moderate class feature for a slightly stronger feat). Ergo, they're stronger. If it's a 'meaningful amount', then they're a harder challenge. Adjust XP and treasure to reflect the increased challenge, and you're good.

[Mordaedil]

I' m still here posting on the 3.5 forum and playing 3.5 games, aren't I?

HEROES and other "everything costs build points" systems offer quite a bit more customization and range of character concepts, while also being simpler. I enjoy 3.5s complexity, but I think it takes a certain idiosyncratic personality to think rooting through 10-20 books to build a character is a good time.

I certainly agree with that. Which is why it's good we have the internet available to us.

If only D&D Tools website worked properly it could replace the need to peruse those websites. And if it had helpful filters so you could look up what prestige classes are suited for arcane casters and the like. And didn't have duplicate entries for feats/spells etc. printed in two books with slightly different texts...

And if it had a character builder.

Sadly, we aren't allowed to have fun things.

[TheifofZ]

This. Why cheat at poker when you've already got a winning hand?

Because sometimes I want to play something besides Texas Hold-Em, and nobody else knows how to play euchre so we're stuck with BS instead.

Which is actually an amazingly analogous description.