PDA

View Full Version : What would you use as a player but not allow as a dm?



oxinabox
2009-10-13, 09:37 AM
I'm talking broken stuff.
for example (bit of background):

So one of the Players intoday session died due to a some Aura or Gaze death effect. and we found out that he would raise in 24 hours as one of the creatures.
Cleric's like "I'll patch him up. 's only death"

I look up the rules from Rasie Dead.... Doesn't work for things that died from death effect.
So Cleric: uh i don't get resurection til next level.
DM: BTW from that fight you levels.
Us: *sigh of releif*
Cleric: wait i don't get it to the level after that.
Fighter: Ok We have 24 hours to lvl so was can save him...

DM: say, i'll throw a encounter at you, if you win i'll give you another lvl.
Do it at the level you are now.

So h opens the monster manual:
Me: Hey thats a Solar! we're ECL 13 - 17 !(he threw random teplates aon us a coupe of seessions ago... it was wierd...)
DM: why yes, yes it is.
Me: but but but:smallsigh:

Can i use my pray bead of summon now?
Dm:... njo the gods have stood asside;
Me: Why have you deserted me! I hate the gods!!! *bellows to the sky*
Roll reflect, ... you gets stuck by lightening.
me: :smallbiggrin: Immune:smallbiggrin:
So Dm's arrows of slaying on one person each round.
first round I get a single penitating eldrich blast through.
I think it may have been the only strike that hit that round.
Next round, i think the sorceer throws a magic syth does a bit of damage, the fighter lands one of his hits, a bit of damage, It's still on like 200 HP.
Oneother person gets Slayed with arrows.
Next round:
Me: "i'm sorry, i'll never do this again but it's a solar, i see no other way..."
I summon 3 Large sharks 80 ft, 70 ft, 60 ft, above the solar.
DM: Roll artillery
I roll, decent rolls. (even though untrained)
Dm works out damage dice.
~80d6 (assumign 2000 lb)
damage: 185 -15 DR
Sorcerss crits on a scyth roll,
leave it on 23 HP.
Fighter rolls, TWF so 4 attacks,
Only one hits, but it crits, confirms.
73 damage.
Dm wasn't paying proper attention.
DM": so My turn, he heals (200 HP for your Information, OOC) and makes a full attack.
Me: He can't! he's dead.
fighter: I did 73 damage.
DM looks puzzled, :smallconfused:
Me: it's over, man! it's all over! He's DEAD

But still I killed him, by dropping god damned sharks on him.
When the going gets tough your bring out the bloody stupid cheese.
The guy who was dming i'ld actualyl refused to let him use a similar tactic in a game i dmed.
(that's where he got the idea for an artillery roll)

What would you do as a player that you wouldn't allow as a dm?

Telonius
2009-10-13, 09:49 AM
And that is why the gods made Gentle Repose.

cenghiz
2009-10-13, 09:52 AM
Even though I do rarely play or DM D&D, I have read this rule so many times in these forums...

In D&D, you cannot summon a creature without a surface that can support it. So you cannot summon sharks above ground, because air cannot support sharks.

I loved playing deckers in older versions of ShadowRun, but I would hate to DM them I guess. Why? To challenge a decker, you always had to make all the other players wait. The longer the challenge lasted for the decker, the more other players yawned.

Malkavian in Vampire? I LOVED playing one. I would hate DMing one. The less understandable and predictable a malkavian, the better he would fit the 'lunatic' standart he lives up to.. and an unpredictable character? DM's nightmare.

kamikasei
2009-10-13, 09:58 AM
I don't think gentle repose helps with effects that cause a slain character to rise as <creature> after 24 hours; and as pointed out, your tactic wasn't cheese, it was simply against the rules.

And of course, the players should always be willing to try things that they wouldn't allow as DMs. They're not the DM, in those cases, and the DM may feel that whatever they want to try is appropriate, or at least funny. So there's no harm in asking...

valadil
2009-10-13, 10:11 AM
I don't like how resurrection spells cheapen death. I usually don't allow them when I GM, but I also get rid of the death effects that necessitate resurrection.

As a player I get rezzed all the time though.

imperialspectre
2009-10-13, 10:18 AM
I will allow almost anything, mechanically, as a DM, provided that it's legal by RAW (Pun-Pun, Janitor of the Multiverse stops the things that are too abusive). My personal standard for what I'll let my characters do stops well short of the "legal by RAW" standard. So I guess there isn't anything I'd use as a player and ban as a DM, because it's basically the other way around for me.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-13, 10:23 AM
Leadership and Persistent Spell. But I allow many things as a DM. However, for those times when I play in a power-mad game...

Spellstitched -> Animate Dread Warrior. Massive Create Spawn undead armies.
Dragonwrought Kobold Loredrake.
Fleshraker + venomfire + et cetera
Diplomancy. Even after the DM "nerfed" it.

SurlySeraph
2009-10-13, 11:07 AM
Arcane Thesis as written. As a DM, I wouldn't let it reduce the metamagic adjustment by more than 2. As a player, I'll enjoy slapping on every +1 metamagic I can find and having it take up the same spell slot.

bosssmiley
2009-10-13, 11:14 AM
And that is why the gods made Gentle Repose.

"Telonius wins. Flawless victory!" :smallbiggrin:

In answer to the question: I wouldn't try to pull any stunt that would fail my own DM's Eyebrow test ( :smallconfused: ). I've more respect for the people I game with than to try cheap tricks.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-13, 11:17 AM
If I wouldn't allow it as a DM, I cannot, in good faith, use it as a Player.

But, as is proper by Hackmaster, I freely use my knowledge to Rules Lawyer - but only for the Greater Good :smallbiggrin:

Boci
2009-10-13, 11:55 AM
Arcane Thesis as written. As a DM, I wouldn't let it reduce the metamagic adjustment by more than 2. As a player, I'll enjoy slapping on every +1 metamagic I can find and having it take up the same spell slot.

Why not? If your players has spent all their feats on +1 metamagic, why can't they use them for free on that one spell?

Kylarra
2009-10-13, 11:58 AM
Arcane thesis reducing adjustments to negatives in order to abuse more powerful metamagic. :smalltongue:

Kyselina
2009-10-13, 12:04 PM
Dragonfire inspiration.

Delwugor
2009-10-13, 12:11 PM
In D&D, you cannot summon a creature without a surface that can support it. So you cannot summon sharks above ground, because air cannot support sharks.
In this case I would allow it for the following reason:

Me: it's over, man! it's all over! He's DEAD
Bragging rights for winning when the odds are really against you is part of what makes gaming awesome.

I pretty much GM as I play with the biggest difference being magic is not easily obtainable.
For example as a player I will purchase a magic bedroll from the Magic Item Compendium as quickly as possible, but as a GM all magic items are difficult to purchase.
The same goes for spells, I'm used to just selecting from a list as a player but not all spells are immediately available when I GM. The players may have to track down uncommon spells (I define uncommon) instead of just selecting them

Pika...
2009-10-13, 12:13 PM
What would you do as a player that you wouldn't allow as a dm?


I believe in the golden roll. If I would veto something in my games, I simply will not do it in another person's game.

For example, I do not allow books on my table except for the PHB, and then it's only for looking up class abilities. When I play, I know ask th DM before looking anything up or grabbing a book.

Kylarra
2009-10-13, 12:16 PM
Just to be pedantic...

Shark 1 @ 60' = 10D6+5D6 = 15D6 average 52.5-15 DR= 37.5
Shark 2 @ 70' = 10D6+6D6 = 16D6 average 56 - 15 DR = 41
Shark 3 @ 80' = 10D6+7D6 = 17D6 average 59.5 - 15 DR = 44.5

Should only be 48D6 anyway

so on average only 123 damage :smalltongue:
if we're being generous and calling them all one attack, it's still only 153 average.

Granted, with the other hits it's enough to drop an average solar (209 hp), but I wanted to point out that the falling object damage was off.

Myou
2009-10-13, 12:22 PM
Anything I'd try a a player I'd allow as DM. I recently let my player punch a vampire onto a huge statue's wooden-shafted pike, in an attempt to stake him through the heart with it. It worked and was awesome. :smallamused:

gdiddy
2009-10-13, 03:16 PM
I would only allow it for Fiendish Sharks. And even then, only for the lulz.

Generally, if as DM I think something is too awesome to fail and the dice agree, it's good. Same when I play.

Blackfang108
2009-10-13, 03:28 PM
Arcane thesis reducing adjustments to negatives in order to abuse more powerful metamagic. :smalltongue:

But, the feat specifically disallows that.

Random832
2009-10-13, 03:30 PM
But, the feat specifically disallows that.

Nope. Even with multiple errata releases, they never fixed it (which leads me to believe it's intended). You can't reduce the _final_ level of the spell below its original level, which is what you're thinking of, but you can pile on enough +0-1's to wipe out any other metamagic adjustment.

ericgrau
2009-10-13, 03:48 PM
Nothing like breaking the rules because you didn't know about another rule that could have saved you. Gentle repose and NPC clerics ftw. There's so many things wrong with summoning a shark to do falling damage I don't know where to begin.

And what's with monsters appearing out of nowhere? Extra low RP setting?

Blackfang108
2009-10-13, 03:50 PM
Nothing like breaking the rules because you didn't know about another rule that could have saved you. Gentle repose and NPC clerics ftw. There's so many things wrong with summoning a shark to do falling damage I don't know where to begin.

You mean aside from the fact that it makes sense?

ericgrau
2009-10-13, 03:53 PM
I mean that it outright breaks multiple explicit rules and uses a questionable interpretation of another rule, when that interpretation contradicts various examples. Oh, and it's obviously cheesy too.

Kylarra
2009-10-13, 03:54 PM
You mean aside from the fact that it makes sense?Well, if you're summoning monsters as artillery, why aren't you using earth elementals or something heavier? :smalltongue:

Delwugor
2009-10-13, 04:22 PM
I mean that it outright breaks multiple explicit rules and uses a questionable interpretation of another rule, when that interpretation contradicts various examples. Oh, and it's obviously cheesy too.

It may break the whole system and win every contest in Wisconsin, but I'd be so happy to hear one of my players say:

I killed a Solar by dropping sharks on its head!
In this case there is only one rule (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) I'd consider above all others.

Oh and then I'd get him one of these (http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/fo-cheesy-white-tshirt/49773338). :smallbiggrin:

Edwin
2009-10-13, 04:27 PM
I would say that it depends a lot on the players.

For example, if you know your players are going to abuse things like nightsticks, divine metamagic, and persistent spell, I'd ban them.

On the other hand, if I could trust a player, I would allow him celerity, time stop and every other cheesy spell out there.

Mongoose87
2009-10-13, 04:30 PM
I would say that it depends a lot on the players.

For example, if you know your players are going to abuse things like nightsticks, divine metamagic, and persistent spell, I'd ban them.

On the other hand, if I could trust a player, I would allow him celerity, time stop and every other cheesy spell out there.

I think a one per-player limit on Nightsticks is generally enough.

Temet Nosce
2009-10-13, 04:42 PM
Resurrection spells. Other than that I may very well be more permissive as a DM than as a player (since as a player I try to limit myself to only slightly better than the party at most).

Ozymandias9
2009-10-13, 04:55 PM
I believe in the golden roll. If I would veto something in my games, I simply will not do it in another person's game.

For example, I do not allow books on my table except for the PHB, and then it's only for looking up class abilities. When I play, I know ask th DM before looking anything up or grabbing a book.

Hear, Hear! Doing something as a player you would not tolerate were you DMing the same game is enforcing a level of discipline on others you are unwilling to exercise personally as self-discipline. It shows a lack of respect not only for the other DM and his/her players, but also for the players you DM for.

Aldizog
2009-10-13, 04:59 PM
Wow, interesting to see the differing takes on the falling-sharks ruling. Personally, I think it makes the solar look pathetic, rather than making the PCs look cool. Aside from everything else mentioned, the solar's protective aura stops a *lot* of things, including summoned sharks. On top of that it's got regeneration, and a contingency active from Wish (would any caster with Wish 1/day as a SLA *not* have Contingency up?).

Looks like either the DM didn't know how to run a solar, or he just wanted to scare the PCs a bit but relented when he realized he was slaughtering them, or he allowed the summon-bomb cheat to work so he could use it as a player.

Doug Lampert
2009-10-13, 05:30 PM
In answer to the question: I wouldn't try to pull any stunt that would fail my own DM's Eyebrow test ( :smallconfused: ). I've more respect for the people I game with than to try cheap tricks.
If I think something is a "cheap trick" that I'd ban as a GM then I'll point out the problem to the GM. He can (1) ban it. (2) Say "Please don't do that." (3) Tell me it's allowed.

If he goes with (3) and I actually want to play that type of character then I'll use it ruthlessly. It's HIS GAME. He sets the rules. I'm not GMing, it's not my business to try to determine what an appropriate power level is or how to balance his game.

If I'm not interested in running such a character I'll likely give the design to someone else. It's likely SOMEONE will want to run such a character.

I won't try to spring Pun-Pun on the GM by surprise, but if he's using rules interpretations that make an obviously overpowered build workable and doesn't object to someone trying it, then I really don't see why someone shouldn't try it.

oxinabox
2009-10-13, 05:34 PM
Just to be pedantic...

Shark 1 @ 60' = 10D6+5D6 = 15D6 average 52.5-15 DR= 37.5
Shark 2 @ 70' = 10D6+6D6 = 16D6 average 56 - 15 DR = 41
Shark 3 @ 80' = 10D6+7D6 = 17D6 average 59.5 - 15 DR = 44.5

Should only be 48D6 anyway

so on average only 123 damage :smalltongue:
if we're being generous and calling them all one attack, it's still only 153 average.

Granted, with the other hits it's enough to drop an average solar (209 hp), but I wanted to point out that the falling object damage was off.
I thought so, I don't think he applied DR sperately to each shark, either, but it was his maths to calc the damage.

Did you take into account the fact that the sharks each weighed 2000 lb?

Yes, i think he underplayed the solar a bit, He spent a round drawing an releasing his sword (it was animated, but we didn't realise it af first)
we were like "Oh gawds,l if he thinks he can afford to just waste actions like that we're screwwed"

thre reason i didn't summon eathjer elementas was because i dopn't have sommon monster. it was a fey heritage spell-like ability, summon natures ally artillery. IV

TelemontTanthul
2009-10-13, 05:37 PM
Taking feats such as.

Metamagic Mastery/Specialization
Quicken Spell
Sudden Empower
Spellcasting Prodigy
Sudden Maximize

Then applying those all to Fireball

It allows for one Hiroshima Bomb/day according to my DM.



AND you still have your whole turn. :D

Mostly because it makes the spell slot like 3 higher or so.

Nero24200
2009-10-13, 05:47 PM
I don't do things in other games that I wouldn't allow in my own games. Though granted, I'm pretty loose with what I allow (I'm a big fan of unusal ideas that I find more common when I allow more splats).

Typically, the only thing I'll ban is taking something purely for power, especially if it might cause the character to start over-taking the others.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 05:49 PM
As a DM, I usually ban Shadowcraft Mage-level cheese. I've actually approved of classes like the Chameleon, or even the Incanatrix (I can actually work around those). But Planar Distortion or disrupting Divine Integrity (Shadow Miracles) I stop cold.


One oddity is that I've previously allowed a player to use the Elder Evil/DCFS infinite feat loop, only to interrupt it after the first 3 uses with Inevitables sent to enforce his devotion. He got the message.


As a player, I freely use thing such as Planar Shepherd, but I reel in the sheer power unless the party hits a major roadblock. If I bring out the big guns, nothing stands in my way. But I'm fairly tame. The worst I've currently done is convinced the DM to allow me to buy a potion of Persistent Wraithstrike. I kinda needed it though (see my Totemist Diary on Gleemax for details on this). Oddly, he approved of this over the Dust of Choking and Sneezing...

My favorite idea is by far the Spell to Power Erudite, as one of my favorite villains was effectively that Gestalted with a Warblade (Rando, Yuyu-Hakusho). I've never put it to use, but I have it all planned out for if I ever do.

Edwin
2009-10-13, 06:07 PM
I think a one per-player limit on Nightsticks is generally enough.

It was more of a general outline of how I would handle it, like saying if my players abuse Cheese A, but can use Cheese B without making it cheesy, I'll ban A and allow B, not just ban the lot of it.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-13, 06:49 PM
Doing something as a player you would not tolerate were you DMing the same game is enforcing a level of discipline on others you are unwilling to exercise personally as self-discipline.

Funny, this is the last place I'd expect to find random moral preaching...

It's not about discipline, it's about the social contract. In the games I run, the social contract is such that action X will destabilize the status quo, and thus be undesirable. In another game, in which I am merely a player, the social contract is more lax and such actions cause no harm.

ericgrau
2009-10-13, 07:32 PM
If I think something is a "cheap trick" that I'd ban as a GM then I'll point out the problem to the GM. He can (1) ban it. (2) Say "Please don't do that." (3) Tell me it's allowed.

If he goes with (3) and I actually want to play that type of character then I'll use it ruthlessly. It's HIS GAME. He sets the rules. I'm not GMing, it's not my business to try to determine what an appropriate power level is or how to balance his game.

This is what I was thinking but I couldn't put it into words.

Curmudgeon
2009-10-13, 08:19 PM
Apply Maximize Spell to Reincarnate, for a result of "Other" for the new creature type. Then ask for something that fits the character, like an Aasimar for a Favored Soul.

elonin
2009-10-13, 09:06 PM
I believe in the golden roll. If I would veto something in my games, I simply will not do it in another person's game.

For example, I do not allow books on my table except for the PHB, and then it's only for looking up class abilities. When I play, I know ask th DM before looking anything up or grabbing a book.


Would you stop a player (of a caster) from looking up spells ie for details of what spell to cast next? I'd also premise that if someone made their spellcraft check they know what the spell does without the player having to memorize all the spells out there.

Kylarra
2009-10-13, 09:33 PM
I thought so, I don't think he applied DR sperately to each shark, either, but it was his maths to calc the damage.

Did you take into account the fact that the sharks each weighed 2000 lb?

Yes, i think he underplayed the solar a bit, He spent a round drawing an releasing his sword (it was animated, but we didn't realise it af first)
we were like "Oh gawds,l if he thinks he can afford to just waste actions like that we're screwwed"

thre reason i didn't summon eathjer elementas was because i dopn't have sommon monster. it was a fey heritage spell-like ability, summon natures ally artillery. IV
Yes. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#fallingObjects

2000lbs * 1D6/200lbs = 10D6

RandomLunatic
2009-10-13, 10:25 PM
Well, if you're summoning monsters as artillery, why aren't you using earth elementals or something heavier? :smalltongue:

:redcloak:Because Titanium Elementals are just as strong and 40% lighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html)

Kylarra
2009-10-13, 10:26 PM
:redcloak:Because Titanium Elementals are just as strong and 40% lighter. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0423.html)Except we're looking for impact damage so lighter = bad. :smallwink:

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-13, 10:44 PM
Apply Maximize Spell to Reincarnate, for a result of "Other" for the new creature type. Then ask for something that fits the character, like an Aasimar for a Favored Soul.

Dm's choice here. If the player accepts the LA on Aasimar, there shouldn't be a problem (I'd just view it as a cheaper version of Raise Dead that grants +2 Cha and Wis as a one time benefit).

drengnikrafe
2009-10-13, 10:55 PM
I didn't read most of the posts here, so forgive me if I'm being redundant.

I believe it is cruel to have something that you use regularly, and then ban as a DM. If it's your first time as a DM, and you don't like what it does in regards to your first campaign, and you disallow it, that seems fair enough. But if you play as a PC using something, and then turn around and reguarly ban it as a DM, you're being foolish and unjust. I have houserules and bans of items here and there, but when I'm PCing, even if my DM doesn't ban it, I won't use it. Like Wild Spell.

Ozymandias9
2009-10-14, 12:18 AM
Funny, this is the last place I'd expect to find random moral preaching...

It's not about discipline, it's about the social contract. In the games I run, the social contract is such that action X will destabilize the status quo, and thus be undesirable. In another game, in which I am merely a player, the social contract is more lax and such actions cause no harm.

I put in the phrase "were you DMing the same game" to indicate that the idea was limited to a situation where the table was not inherently more lax or strict. Perhaps "a game of the same power level" would be a better way to put it.

If the games are different, the games are different, and different things will be appropriate. Your particular tastes in DMing may never, of course, put you in the situation of asking players not to do things you would deem to be inappropriate for a game of the other DM's chosen power level.

Regardless, unless you are new to the system or a particular range of the potential power iterations thereof, you probably have at least an idea of how you would run a table with a similar power level (that is, as you accurately pointed out, a similar social contract). You probably have an idea about what you wouldn't want someone doing in that situation. So if you think something would break a game of the given type, why would you do it?

Doing less than you would ask of others were you in a position to require it is truly bad form. It's disrespectful: you're expecting less of yourself than you would of others. You're taking an action that will increase your own enjoyment when you would normally expect the action to diminish the experience of the others involved. It's not just a DM/player issue: that's a fair measure of social irresponsibility. That's the kind of thing we create social contracts to reign in on.

jiriku
2009-10-14, 12:04 PM
Something I freely take advantage of but would never allow in my own game: in my current game, the DM has a magic item shop in which one can freely buy, with no waiting, every magic item and every spell published in any D&D book.

The magic items aren't such a big deal, as their power is limited by cost, and many effective builds need access to specific items in order to work well. but my wizard has boccob's blessed book, so I can add spells for a song. The biggest cost for learning new spells for me is really the 8 hour scribing time. My wizard stops by here once or twice every adventure to pick up the perfect spell for the job, and by giving me unlimited access to any spell, the DM has given up a serious amount of control over my power growth.

In my own campaigns, spells have to be acquired from NPCs with limited spell books, and when I craft a spellbook, I do so with careful consideration for the power I'm giving to arcane casters by potentially letting them acquire the spell as loot. If I have a potent spell I want to use, but I don't want the players to get unlimited use of it, I put it on a scroll or I give it to a spontaneous caster.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-10-14, 12:59 PM
I convinced one of my DMs to let me use the Feat Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana for a Gestalt Barbarian//Rogue. He gains bonus feats as a Fighter, has Rogue skills and the HD/BaB of a Barbarian.... I know gestalt characters should be more powerful, but this guy has the best of three classes. I'd have never let this fly in my own campaign (but I didn't mention that to my DM either. :p )

hamishspence
2009-10-14, 01:01 PM
Except we're looking for impact damage so lighter = bad. :smallwink:

Not if the weight is already at the maximum damage a falling/catapulted object can do.

If its a choice between 20d6 damage at 500 ft and 20d6 damage at 800 ft, the extra range is a good thing.

Myou
2009-10-14, 01:20 PM
I convinced one of my DMs to let me use the Feat Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana for a Gestalt Barbarian//Rogue. He gains bonus feats as a Fighter, has Rogue skills and the HD/BaB of a Barbarian.... I know gestalt characters should be more powerful, but this guy has the best of three classes. I'd have never let this fly in my own campaign (but I didn't mention that to my DM either. :p )

But... that sucks.... :smallconfused:

You blew an entire side of the gestalt on nothing but a higher hit die and slightly better BAB (and rage, but that's not exactly great). And on the other side you traded sneak attack for a slew of low-value fighter feats.

This isn't more powerful at all, and yet you'd disallow it?

root9125
2009-10-14, 02:10 PM
Not if the weight is already at the maximum damage a falling/catapulted object can do.

If its a choice between 20d6 damage at 500 ft and 20d6 damage at 800 ft, the extra range is a good thing.

That's a commonly cited rule... But in reality, that's the max damage a falling object can *take*. The titanium elemental will take 20d6 damage. But if the DM prefers sensible physics (which, well, I mean, we're nerds. We like things to make sense), the person below it takes (((weight - 400) / 200) + 5)d6 according to the table in ch 5 (?) of Complete Warrior for Improvised Weapons. This damage is not related to the falling damage (which is resolved separately), because it's the damage you take from being crushed, not the damage you take from being hit.

This variant rule represents the fact that you get hurt more by a city falling on you from 200 feet than a pebble falling on you from 200 ft.

Gadora
2009-10-14, 02:36 PM
I'm not confident in my ability to judge the impact of custom items and homebrew, but I'd be willing to use them if the DM said I could.

elonin
2009-10-14, 08:25 PM
Something I freely take advantage of but would never allow in my own game: in my current game, the DM has a magic item shop in which one can freely buy, with no waiting, every magic item and every spell published in any D&D book.

The magic items aren't such a big deal, as their power is limited by cost, and many effective builds need access to specific items in order to work well. but my wizard has boccob's blessed book, so I can add spells for a song. The biggest cost for learning new spells for me is really the 8 hour scribing time. My wizard stops by here once or twice every adventure to pick up the perfect spell for the job, and by giving me unlimited access to any spell, the DM has given up a serious amount of control over my power growth.

In my own campaigns, spells have to be acquired from NPCs with limited spell books, and when I craft a spellbook, I do so with careful consideration for the power I'm giving to arcane casters by potentially letting them acquire the spell as loot. If I have a potent spell I want to use, but I don't want the players to get unlimited use of it, I put it on a scroll or I give it to a spontaneous caster.

Sounds like you are seriously nerfing any wizards in your game. If you are not limiting magic items (except for price structure) then non-casters can do what they need to without much restriction. The ability for wizards to pick up any of their spells and put it in their book (at cost) is a class feature giving them flexibility. The equivalent of what you are doing would be to make a rogue shop and quest for his sneak attack damage. I've played games in the past where I've had to go and pay full cost for every extra spell that went into my book and that put me behind the curve with regards to gear. (ie the only casters we faced were clerics so no spell books)

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 08:31 PM
Not if the weight is already at the maximum damage a falling/catapulted object can do.

If its a choice between 20d6 damage at 500 ft and 20d6 damage at 800 ft, the extra range is a good thing.but the situation I was theoretically talking about involved casting a summon [nature's ally as it turns out] spell, which has a close range and thus potential distance launched is irrelevant, additionally damage from falling object by mass is not capped, only the damage dealt by distance fallen, which would be the same regardless.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-10-14, 09:59 PM
But... that sucks.... :smallconfused:

You blew an entire side of the gestalt on nothing but a higher hit die and slightly better BAB (and rage, but that's not exactly great). And on the other side you traded sneak attack for a slew of low-value fighter feats.

This isn't more powerful at all, and yet you'd disallow it?

In a low-magic game it's pretty effing great to have the Weapon Specialization Tree on top of Rage, okay. V_V

Myou
2009-10-15, 04:23 AM
In a low-magic game it's pretty effing great to have the Weapon Specialization Tree on top of Rage, okay. V_V

I guess I'm just used to must higher power combinations than you. ^^

I can't even imagine how weapon spec. is better than getting sneak attack, I would actually refuse the trade even if the DM offered it, but maybe for you it is worth it, I just can't understand why you'd feel the need to ban it in your games.

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 10:32 AM
In a low-magic game it's pretty effing great to have the Weapon Specialization Tree on top of Rage, okay. V_V
Technically the feat rogue doesn't qualify for the weapon spec tree as that requires fighter levels. :smalltongue:

Myou
2009-10-15, 11:06 AM
Technically the feat rogue doesn't qualify for the weapon spec tree as that requires fighter levels. :smalltongue:

Wow, if enforced that would gimp the variant even more since it wouldn't even qualify for most of the better feats. xD

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 11:09 AM
Wow, if enforced that would gimp the variant even more since it wouldn't even qualify for most of the better feats. xD
Yeah I know, I'm just saying that technically it doesn't. :smalltongue:

mem0man
2009-10-15, 11:17 AM
As a DM I typically don't allow anything from or that comes out of Unearthed Arcana and sometimes even remove it from the shelf and sometimes the room for that matter when sessions. You best believe, however, it is the first thing I go to when playing. Both decisions are made because I understand the book and as a DM I know I don't want to deal with it.

woodenbandman
2009-10-15, 12:05 PM
Well I used Divine Metamagic as a player but I won't allow it as a DM. Generally speaking, anyway. Same with Leadership.

To be fair, I wasn't the first one to take Leadership in that campaign, I just did it out of lack of better feats. Also, the party was DESPERATELY in need of some optimizing. We would've died if I hadn't busted out the DMM archivist.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-10-16, 01:22 PM
Technically the feat rogue doesn't qualify for the weapon spec tree as that requires fighter levels. :smalltongue:

Ohhh.

Welp, thanks for bringing that to light.

>_>

<_<

Now let us forget this conversation ever happened.

Blackfang108
2009-10-16, 01:56 PM
As a DM I typically don't allow anything from or that comes out of Unearthed Arcana and sometimes even remove it from the shelf and sometimes the room for that matter when sessions. You best believe, however, it is the first thing I go to when playing. Both decisions are made because I understand the book and as a DM I know I don't want to deal with it.

But you have no problems making OTHER DMs deal with it?

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I only forbid things that don't fit into the campaign world, like Drow. (Just because I read the D'bell chronicles doesn't mean I like anything about that race. at all.)

Although in the newest world i'm planning, I'll probably need them to be Tiste Andii

LibraryOgre
2009-10-16, 02:56 PM
3.5 or Pathfinder.