Uninforced rules?

[Lolzords]

Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

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

[PlatinumJester]

You can be killed by a caltrop if you are on 1HP. However this saved my life once so I don't mind to much.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Green Bean]

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

[bugsysservant]

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

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

[Blackbrrd]

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

[tainsouvra]

Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

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

[Matthew]

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

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

[JackMage666]

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

[tainsouvra]

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

Take your pick, honestly. Look at a level, choice of gear appropriate for that level, and opponents of a proper CR for that level.

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

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

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

[mostlyharmful]

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

[Matthew]

Take your pick, honestly. Look at a level, choice of gear appropriate for that level, and opponents of a proper CR for that level.

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

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

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

Sure, but how does reducing the penalties by one balance all this out? I'm fairly well acquainted with the Maths of Two Weapon Fighting versus Two Handed Fighting, so don't be shy.

[Dark Knight Renee]

Are there any rules in the D&D system, that don't make sense to you or you don't want to enforce?

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

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


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

[Kurald Galain]

Never enforced alignment.

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

Probably some other stuff.

[tainsouvra]

Sure, but how does reducing the penalties by one balance all this out? I'm fairly well acquainted with the Maths of Two Weapon Fighting versus Two Handed Fighting, so don't be shy.

Because if it breaks even at -2, then it's one point better than breaking even if you reduce the penalty by one...and "one point better attack bonus" is already established as a reasonable feat?

[mostlyharmful]

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

[Matthew]

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

Am I misunderstanding something you're saying here?

[psychoticbarber]

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

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

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

Are we talking random heart-attacks here?

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

It doesn't work!
*Grumble*

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

[Matthew]

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

[psychoticbarber]

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

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

[Diggorian]

I generally try to use all of the system because it is a system. Changing X can effect Y, Z, and A subtely and generate issues down the line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kyeudo]

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

[Matthew]

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

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

[Gralamin]

I do not enforce Losing Class Skills due to multiclassing
I do not enforce XP penalty for Multiclassing
I do not make Arcane casters pay for their first Familiar

Thats all I can think of for now.

[psychoticbarber]

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

Haha, I'll take it.

[Serenity]

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

[Matthew]

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

[Gavin Sage]

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

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

[kjones]

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

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

[tainsouvra]

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

Am I misunderstanding something you're saying here?

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

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