What do you guys think about my DM's house rule?

[SangoProduction]

I am set to be in a game with the following set of house rules. I generally can appreciate them, but I wonder what the rest of the giants think. The ability to prepare resources, like spells, in the past is quite...exceptional. But it's not unlimited. And it's in the context of a dungeon crawl, so "preparing" for the particular fight probably isn't going to let you roll over the rest of the day's dungeon.

The Biggest Houserule: Flashbacks
Inspired by Blades in the Dark, in this game, you prepare after you need to instead of before.

When using a Flashback, you describe the actions you took in the past. This may call for some dice rolls and roleplay. Any resources you spend in the past, like money or spellslots, must be spent using TODAY'S resources.

Before each combat starts, you will all be given one round of prep time to declare that you were ready for combat with things such as buff spells, loaded and drawn weapons, retrieved items, and you can declare where you were positioned when a fight broke out. You will get these even if you were surprised. These preparations can be catered to the specific monster (which you will have time to identify before combat), but you cannot use this to ready actions.


You receive a pool of 2 Retro Points (RP). One point will refresh every session, and the other is granted from the start of the campaign, refreshing when I think you deserve it.

Some retcons are free, such as remembering to bring rations, camping supplies, and other mundane tools. Magical supplies that were in stock also cost no RP to buy.

Retcons such as having something already crafted and ready to use now, will cost 1 RP. You can even sell some treasure you've picked up for more items in the shop with 1 RP. Flashbacks declared in the middle of combat cost a minimum of 1 RP.

Retcons that significantly alter the established timeline may cost 2 RP. You can also attempt to bribe me with an extra RP point to turn a failed roll into a successful one.

I reserve the right to declare my own flashbacks.

[Hellpyre]

This sounds like a problem waiting to happen. Retroactively having bought enough arrows or food seems fine, but avoiding the meaningful penalties of time to retrocraft, or allowing for perfect foresight by, say, a cleric (with their massive liat of conditional spells) invites problems. But what sounds worse is that it seems like you can use things you have aquired in a dungeon to retroactively have had more money to shop in town before you came to the dungeon. That would break my immersion - hard.

[Saintheart]

I don't see that as terribly more unbalanced than Action Points. And the problem is primarily one for your DM, since all this really does is make your players more prepared or more able to handle his encounters. And if he's reserving the right to declare his own flashbacks, the net effect of that is potentially zero if you pull a spell out of your flashback and he pulls a counter or some second save out of his flashback. I don't see this as much to get excited about in mechanical terms if your DM knows what he's doing.

[Powerdork]

I'd like to inform everyone about the actual execution (https://bladesinthedark.com/planning-engagement) Blades does, which I think is handled elegantly. (The only problem is that stress is not quite HP; Blades has actual harm impede your actions, and you mitigate consequences such as harmful conditions by suffering stress, which you need to relieve in downtime or you'll crack under the pressures of being a scoundrel. This is all replaced with the hard cap the GM imposed on Retro Points.)



The rules don’t distinguish between actions performed in the present moment and those performed in the past. When an operation is underway, you can invoke a flashback to roll for an action in the past that impacts your current situation. Maybe you convinced the district Watch sergeant to cancel the patrol tonight, so you make a Sway roll to see how that went.

The GM sets a stress cost when you activate a flashback action.

0 Stress: An ordinary action for which you had easy opportunity. Consorting with a friend to agree to arrive at the dice game ahead of time, to suddenly spring out as a surprise ally.
1 Stress: A complex action or unlikely opportunity. Finessing your pistols into a hiding spot near the card table so you could retrieve them after the pat-down at the front door.
2 (or more) Stress: An elaborate action that involved special opportunities or contingencies. Having already studied the history of the property and learned of a ghost that is known to haunt its ancient canal dock—a ghost that can be compelled to reveal the location of the hidden vault.
After the stress cost is paid, a flashback action is handled just like any other action. Sometimes it will entail an action roll, because there’s some danger or trouble involved. Sometimes a flashback will entail a fortune roll, because we just need to find out how well (or how much, or how long, etc.). Sometimes a flashback won’t call for a roll at all because you can just pay the stress and it’s accomplished.

If a flashback involves a downtime activity, pay 1 coin or 1 rep for it, instead of stress.

The coin cost (abstract; 40 coin is "retire, never wanting for anything" money) represents time you can't devote to gathering income, if it doesn't represent actually paying someone to do it; the rep cost represents you calling in favours with friendly factions.

[zlefin]

Not terrible; but it doesn't seem like a net improvement. It seems to increase caster/mundane disparity further.

I'm a bit unclear on the interaction between "retro points" and the combat start thing. Is the at combat start something that applies to all combats regardless of whether you spend points?

Being able to pick the right spells for an encounter is brutal when you have a lot of spells to choose from and some spells are very powerful but very selective.

[stack]

Since the OP is familiar with Spheres of Power, based on previous threads, I will note that the Time sphere has a similar ability, Retroactive Preparation. It is more limited though.
As a standard action, you may spend a spell point to edit the past, retroactively obtaining a generic object worth less than 100 gp per caster level. The object immediately appears on your person or in a container or extradimensional space attended by you. The cost of the item is immediately deducted from the wealth (usually coins, but can be nonmagical gemstones or other nonmagical objects used for trade) you currently carry.

You cannot obtain an object worth more than you have the wealth to purchase. The object must be one that would have been available in a settlement you have visited within the past 1 week per caster level.

[King of Nowhere]

I like it and may use it in the future.

the reason is that there is ALWAYS something you wanted to do but you forgot doing, both as player and dm. this is an elegant fix, as long as it is used for this purpose - fixing the "oh damn, i actually forgot to do X" moments.


But what sounds worse is that it seems like you can use things you have aquired in a dungeon to retroactively have had more money to shop in town before you came to the dungeon. That would break my immersion - hard.

of course, like many similar houserules, it can be abused by someone willing to abuse it. the reason those houserules can exist is that they are made at a specific table, among a small group of people, where nobody wants to abuse them. being a houserule, it's also entirely to the master's discretion, which again wards against abuse.

[Hellpyre]

of course, like many similar houserules, it can be abused by someone willing to abuse it. the reason those houserules can exist is that they are made at a specific table, among a small group of people, where nobody wants to abuse them. being a houserule, it's also entirely to the master's discretion, which again wards against abuse.

I mean, the OP did ask for opinions on the house rule, and using treasure to buy items in town is an explicit example from the DM. I would find that to be immersion-breaking, and would bring up the concern with a DM who proposed the rule. It isn't my highest concern because of abuse potential (that would be prepared casters), but rather is my largest overall concern because it would negatively impact my enjoyment of a game where it was implemented.

[Fizban]

I find such rules that run against the core tenets of 3.5 distasteful. Narratively driven mechanics are one thing, at least you can somewhat justify them as heroic extra oomph, but a half-codified retcon ability doesn't have that.

Trying to make retcon rules just incentivizes people to try and game it, and thus the DM to build encounters assuming maximized use of it. And then what actually happens is some players use it as an excuse to not pay attention, some as a legitimate cover for not being Perfect Gamers, some to try and Outwit The DM, and inevitably someone is going to have their retcon not do what they want and get mad, or be missing it and die because they did something basic earlier but the boss expected you to have it ready, and it all turns into a mess. Especially in a game like 3.5 with so many layers of specific counters and counter-counters at the extreme end.

The actual "rule" should be: If you think you messed up and should have done something earlier but you didn't have your head in the game, then it might be retconned (if it's reasonably in character for someone in the party and won't ruin the game-state)- but never more than once per session unless I'm feeling really generous, because if you're just not paying attention then you deserve what's coming to you. Which isn't so much a rule as it is being a good DM as far as I'm concerned. Refusing minor retcons is just asking for trouble, same as giving people an excuse to demand major ones.

[InvisibleBison]

I think that there should be some gradations of this ability, tied to your character's Int score. Smarter characters, especially those who are smarter than the player, should have greater ability to foresee upcoming situations than dumb ones.

I also think that the pre-combat prep round doesn't really make sense. In a non-ambush situation, you may very well have a lot more than one round to prepare (eg, if your scout reports there's a bunch of orcs in the next room, you can then spend several rounds preparing before attacking them); an ambush, on the other hand, is defined by you not having any time to prepare for it.

[Telonius]

Sounds a little like something from a Powered by the Apocalypse game. Definitely more "cinematic" than the typical D&D adventure. If you're into your characters being more like action movie heroes, I'd say it adds something to the game. It seems to me that it would be nicest for casual players - people who aren't tracking everything and less immersed in the gaming world. For people who are tracking everything already, it's a potentially unbalancing option.

[SangoProduction]

I think that there should be some gradations of this ability, tied to your character's Int score. Smarter characters, especially those who are smarter than the player, should have greater ability to foresee upcoming situations than dumb ones.

I also think that the pre-combat prep round doesn't really make sense. In a non-ambush situation, you may very well have a lot more than one round to prepare (eg, if your scout reports there's a bunch of orcs in the next room, you can then spend several rounds preparing before attacking them); an ambush, on the other hand, is defined by you not having any time to prepare for it.

I would not approve of stuffing even more power in to a casting stat that martials just can't afford to get a bunch of.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's not bad really, but it appears to heavily favor spellcasters over non-casters with the free round of buffs. It could be pretty easy to abuse, such as switching out prepared spells during combat, or switching one effect on an Ancestral Relic item for another effect of equal value (which takes 0 time if the value isn't going up). Or something like a Soulbow spending 1 RP to put exactly the right Bane property on his mind arrow enhancement.

I guess the question then is what are you playing, and how are you planning to (ab)use this mechanic?

[Powerdork]

the core tenets of 3.5

Can you substantiate these, please? I'm not quite familiar enough with the meta principles of D&D that I know these off the top of my head, or where to look in my copies of the core books.

[SangoProduction]

It's not bad really, but it appears to heavily favor spellcasters over non-casters with the free round of buffs. It could be pretty easy to abuse, such as switching out prepared spells during combat, or switching one effect on an Ancestral Relic item for another effect of equal value (which takes 0 time if the value isn't going up). Or something like a Soulbow spending 1 RP to put exactly the right Bane property on his mind arrow enhancement.

I guess the question then is what are you playing, and how are you planning to (ab)use this mechanic?

Me? I'm not planning to do anything too special. Just play a gish for the free round of buffs and then run in fists a-blazin'.

[Psychoalpha]

the reason is that there is ALWAYS something you wanted to do but you forgot doing, both as player and dm.

Yeah, while I'm not entirely sold on the whole thing presented here, as a DM I try to be forgiving of RL people not being as sharp or on the ball as the characters they play (whose lives, from their perspective, are on the line). This, more or less, seems like a formalized and more preplanned acknowledgement of the same. Might use it in a one shot to see how it actually works in play.


of course, like many similar houserules, it can be abused by someone willing to abuse it. the reason those houserules can exist is that they are made at a specific table, among a small group of people, where nobody wants to abuse them. being a houserule, it's also entirely to the master's discretion, which again wards against abuse.

Yeah, I'm not worried about abuse at all, because I don't worry about abuse at our tables. I mostly worry about whether it'll bog down speed of play to a notable degree.


It's not bad really, but it appears to heavily favor spellcasters over non-casters with the free round of buffs.

Well, as long as you're not talking about a party entirely made up of non-casters, that's not entirely true. Non-casters need buffs too, and attempting to play a caster character who isn't entirely dedicated to being a buffer tends to result in either being exactly that, because every combat round is spent putting necessary buffs on people and then it's over before you get to do something non-buffing, or with non-casters not getting buffs because the caster's player does other stuff because otherwise they're not having fun.

So a free set up before a combat where the caster can both hand out buffs AND then spend combat not feeling like a glorified pez dispenser is of benefit to both casters and non-casters.

[Quertus]

So, I don't dislike the "free round of buffs" bit. But I find this level and type of retcon bad, for a) breaking immersion; b) incentivizing stupidity / punishing intelligence.

The player who actually thought to buy flasks of oil back in town? He is not only no better off than everyone else (who just retcon that they have oil when they need it), he is actively in a worse position, as a) they get cool spotlight time to buy their oil, and b) if oil isn't needed, he has to sell his back at half price to get what the adventure actually calls for.

Building Magic decks for kids, I include "may" abilities, to encourage them to actually pay attention, and become better players. This rule is the opposite of that, and encourages and trains players to become worse.

[D+1]

It's not an overpowered rule and not overly inclined to be abused, but... what's it for? Part of being "a smart player" in D&D is seeing to it that your PC is PROPERLY prepared when leaving for a journey, beginning an adventure, entering a dungeon, intending to start a fight, etc. The overwhelming use I see for this rule is to ensure that short-sighted players pay no price for their short-sightedness and while it's not going to destroy anyone's game it sure seems poised to reward something that is supposed to be undesired among players in normal D&D.

I didn't know anything about Blades in the Dark, the game which I gather this was drawn from. After looking at just the bullet points on its webpage it is a fiction-driven game. In fact, it says it puts the fiction first, but then in the same sentence says that's put on equal footing with ability scores. That's what's called a contradiction. It can't be put FIRST in the game's mechanics and then be equal with ability scores. But fiction-control mechanics don't have much place in a numbers-manipulation based game.

D&D - ANY version of D&D - is driven by ability scores, skill points, etc. not by narrative-control devices being used by players. If the DM wants a game with more narrative-control mechanics I'd suggest perhaps they're starting with the wrong rules (but that's for the DM to determine). If introduction of this mechanic is intended to solve an ongoing PROBLEM that needed to be addressed, again I'm not sure what that would have been. If it is just intended to add something new and interesting to the game I think it's a misstep.

[Zancloufer]

This doesn't seem that bad. Do remember that anything beyond a simple "Oh I forgot to buy something in town that my PC probably wouldn't have forgotten to" costs points. All the actual combat altering ones cost 1-2 points and you have two max points. Combine this with the fact that one point is refreshed per PLAY DAY and the other is refreshed at the end of an adventure, or in recondition of doing something really awesome.


Remember this is something that will come up ONCE PER SESSION. Unless you run in a weird one (social) encounter per IRL day this is something that you will have to really think about before using.

[Powerdork]

Not everyone has the same fun. Not everyone wants to actually put Batman-level consideration into their in-game Batman's loadout. Some people are there for good fun with friends at the end of a long week.

[zlefin]

The one part I definitely approve of, and that I tend to consider a common default rule, is the free retcons for mundane supplies that any adventurer would not forget, subject to what they would actually be expecting in the circumstances. e.g. an actual adventurer would be aware of the possibility of rations being needed, and they aren't going to just forget to bring food; they might misestimate the amount of food they'd need, but they wouldn't just forget about it entirely.

[King of Nowhere]

thinking some more about it, i'd like to revise my position to a "i like it, provided that the player can justify the retcon in a sensible manner"

that is, if you enter the room and a fight erupts and you want to retcon having buffed yourself earlier, it's reasonable. you could have made a listen check to determine that there were enemies inside, and so decided to buff yourself. if you knew you were going to fight trolls, but you forgot to change your spell preparation to include more fire/acid spells, then again it's all cool.
I remember one of talekeal's horror stories that started from a player getting a curse, and forgetting to have it removed until he was in the next dungeon, in the thick of combat. this is definitely the kind of stuff that i'd allow retcon.

but if an enemy ambushes the party unprepared, then there's no way they would have cast a buff one round earlier. if the party faces trolls as a random encounter, then it's not reasonable for the wizard to have prepared more fire spells than usual.
and it would break immersion to retcon like that.

similarly, if your character is crazy prepared and always brings alchemist fire, caltrops, sun stones, smoke sticks, and a couple dozen other alchemicals and potions, and he misses one that's not particularly more expensive and rare than the others, it would not strain credibility to assume that the character remembered to bring this item that the player did not. if the character has nothing on his inventory, then i'd not let them bring always the right tool.
this should take care of quertus' concern for encouraging people to play stupid, which is also my concern. if this rule allows you to walk unprepared and then tailor your preparation to a fight you could not have planned in advance, then i count it as abuse potential.

[Powerdork]

What I'm hearing in this thread is: it'd be better if it were more directly influenced by the one found in Blades in the Dark (which accounts for reasonable opportunity and the like), but even in its ideal form it's still not for everyone.
I'm definitely considering it for my own games, though, now that the possibility's been brought up.

[Fizban]

Can you substantiate these, please? I'm not quite familiar enough with the meta principles of D&D that I know these off the top of my head, or where to look in my copies of the core books.

Not everyone has the same fun. Not everyone wants to actually put Batman-level consideration into their in-game Batman's loadout. Some people are there for good fun with friends at the end of a long week.
You answered it yourself there: the game, for good or ill, has a significant element of "Batmanning." Not in so many words, but the standard party is about as directly stated as you can get without making the other classes look bad (they are there to play and have fun), and the standard party has a Cleric and Wizard (and all parties have access to consumable items). As I said above, the game isn't supposed to unduly penalize you for preparing the wrong spells, running away is a default option, but if you want to win then you either need to get lucky or those two need to bring the right spells.

You can run and play the game in a way where this isn't a thing, simply by having a party with no prepared casters and a DM that is choosing monsters and building dungeons that said party can handle with their existing spells known and gear. But the standard party vs the full array of monsters and traps in 3.5 expects players to git gud. Running a more customized game does in fact take more effort on the part of the DM in order to let the players run whatever characters they want without an increased chance of failure, and naturally these are all things that should have been discussed before the game started. It is of course perfectly acceptable to play a low-prep party in a status quo game where they might run into something they can't possibly handle, as long as everyone agrees.

Returning to the retcon mechanic: well if you're not playing a character with variable "Batman" abilities already, there's little obvious stuff for you to retcon. If you are, then you shouldn't be relying on a retcon ability to save you, because the number of choices you have to make is well beyond any reasonable retcon allowance. If you just want to relax then you should be playing a spontaneous caster with a DM that's not going to hose you for not bringing X, and if you want to be Batman then you should put in the effort. Either way I'm going to allow anyone some lattitude with minor slip ups because it's a game for fun, and not going to allow direct intentional abuse of said leniency.


Another problem with limited retcons: the fact that a particular retcon probably implies a level of foresight that itself implies further stuff you should have done. If you thought to bribe a guy earlier, you also should have bribed this other guy, and examined the patrol route, etc. It doesn't actually remove the need for planning ability, it just shifts it from proper pre-planning into correct retcon use, and it's entirely likely that if you retcon something you'll find out next turn that the problem you tried to fix was actually a multi-stage problem and you/r character just looks incompetent. Some characters have more or less things they can do pre-mission, and some are more or less intelligent in-character, but they all get the same allowance, regardless of their or their player's ability (not counting when the DM decides someone deserves an extra point, obviously).

Now, the response is that this isn't supposed to replace planning, it's supposed to be in addition to normal planning so that if you miss something you can fix it, but if your goal is a "relaxing fun time" do you really think people are going to put in their full effort on pre-mission when they know they can retcon things? Some will, and some won't, and the divide is a problem because the retcon mechanics, unlike their class choices, are not opt-in. Heck, even worse, I see a likely result that in order to save the retcon point of the capable character, less capable characters will try to jump in with their own retcons and end up making things worse (failing to bribe someone and retroactively alerting the enemy after you've already decided to engage, for example).


What I'm hearing in this thread is: it'd be better if it were more directly influenced by the one found in Blades in the Dark (which accounts for reasonable opportunity and the like), but even in its ideal form it's still not for everyone.
I'm definitely considering it for my own games, though, now that the possibility's been brought up.
The one in Blades in the Dark looks like a central mechanic. It's a game about "performing operations" which deliberately says past and present actions are equivalent, and charges what I must assume is the same (or close enough) cost for past actions as you'd expect to pay for dealing with the same situation differently in the present. It simulates the type of story with a lot of flashbacks, so the two are interchangable and draw from the same resources, and I'll bet it treats all characters the same ( X stress and Y skills with Z/Q/W bonus, etc), probably with a nod that skills should do just about anything the player can justify.

DnD is not any of that, 3.5 especially. There is no inherent cost to choosing to prepare properly, nothing it can be converted to in order to maintain equivalence with a combat- the whole point is that being prepared makes combat easier, not that it's some sort of tradeoff. The game expects you to prepare, unless the DM decides that it doesn't. Characters are drastically, ludicrously different from each other in every respect (unless the players deliberately decide to all play the same class), and their abilities have hard, absolute limits (unless the DM decides they don't).

The only way a retcon mechanic "fits" 3.5 is if the DM says so, or it's a spell. Neither of which actually accounts for the fact that it clashes with everything, only in the fact that the DM can say so. Building a game from the ground up to include non-linear actions for similar characters is quite do-able, bolting it onto a game that is the opposite in almost every way, not so much.


I remember one of talekeal's horror stories that started from a player getting a curse, and forgetting to have it removed until he was in the next dungeon, in the thick of combat. this is definitely the kind of stuff that i'd allow retcon.
Which brings up another category of difference in DMs- that's the kind of thing I'll specifically remind players about, because they shouldn't have forgotten it. So the only way that gets through is if both the players and myself forget it.

Basically there's nothing you can build a retcon mechanic for in 3.5 that can't be sorted into either Good DMing or Playing the Game. Either the DM should have been working with the players to keep the game fun and reasonable, or the thing they're trying to retcon was a deliberate game choice they made which was wrong and should have game consequences.