PDA

View Full Version : Ban Lists for most games...



Khellendross
2010-06-06, 12:46 PM
I am going to be running some games and I'm at the end of my character creation guide that has what source books I allow without approval, my house rules etc and ban lists on magic items, feats, spells etc so that there aren't any hickups during game play.

I've done everything but the ban lists and have done searching on google and here but no luck finding what most people ban from their games. Items, prestige classes and spells etc that are broken and cheesy. Does anyone have any links or what you'd ban yourself as a DM?

Tanuki Tales
2010-06-06, 12:50 PM
I flat out ban the use of the Book of Vile Darkness.

Though this is mostly because my group has a broken sense of morality and would try to skew everything as a good or neutral act. -_-

Private-Prinny
2010-06-06, 12:50 PM
The Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821&highlight=test+spite) has a ban list of some of the most broken stuff.

I've also seen people blanket ban classes above a certain tier. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) Tier 3 is my personal favorite.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-06, 12:52 PM
Candle of invocation.

Just...look at it.

Pika...
2010-06-06, 12:53 PM
My list consists of:
-Book of Nine Swords.
-Tome of Magic.
-Complete Psionics (but not the XPH!).
-Anything I recognize from seeing often in Optimization forums/threads.


ps. I require everything is passed by me for approval. Even Core stuff.

Azernak0
2010-06-06, 12:53 PM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Escheton
2010-06-06, 12:54 PM
My list consists of:
-Book of Nine Swords.
-Tome of Magic.
-Complete Psionics (but not the XPH!).
-Anything I recognize from seeing often in Optimization forums/threads.


ps. I require everything is passed by me for approval. Even Core stuff.

BOOOOO!!!!

also: don't forget magic of incarnum

Ernir
2010-06-06, 12:55 PM
Is this a game with just a few of your friends, a game with people you know less than well, or something with people you don't know at all?

What kind of stuff you "should" ban should depend on this, and your given group's playstyle.

Khellendross
2010-06-06, 12:57 PM
Not looking to ban books per-say but certain things that people tend to exploit that breaks the game.

kamikasei
2010-06-06, 01:04 PM
I am going to be running some games and I'm at the end of my character creation guide that has what source books I allow without approval...

None.

There you go.

Seriously. Don't allow anything with blanket approval. Be in the loop for all the players' character creation. Don't ban things outright, see how they intend to use them and allow or disallow them on that basis. (Some things will have to look very hard to find a basis that would see them allowed, of course...)

The only things where I'd agree with banning in advance by sourcebook are such things as psionics, ToB, ToM, Incarnum etc. if you yourself aren't familiar with the sub-system. Even then, there's no reason to ban individual feats or items if your player can provide you with the text for them.

Core contains plenty that is broken. The splatbooks with the most egregious brokenness outside core contain plenty that is harmless. Just talk to your players, make sure you both understand where they want to take their characters and what they'll be capable of, and as a group agree on the power level and tone of the game.


Not looking to ban books per-say but certain things that people tend to exploit that breaks the game.

Anything open-ended. Summoning. Polymorph. Wild Shape. Cleric and Druid casting needs a careful eye kept on it, since they can pick whatever spells they want each morning out of all the sources in play. Full casters in general are a combinatorial hell and it'd be a good idea to get players to draw up spell lists in advance both to give you a clear picture of their powers and to cut down on bookkeeping at their end.

Flickerdart
2010-06-06, 01:07 PM
Ban core. It makes for a surprisingly refreshing game.

Octopus Jack
2010-06-06, 01:09 PM
Ban core. It makes for a surprisingly refreshing game.

So going to try this sometime, and if anyone else tries it I'll just get my truenamer out :smallbiggrin:

Prodan
2010-06-06, 01:12 PM
-Anything I recognize from seeing often in Optimization forums/threads.

Truenamers?

Amphetryon
2010-06-06, 01:17 PM
Truenamers?

Clerics, Wizards, Druids, ToB, Erudites, Archivists, Power Attack...

It could end up a big list, if 'often used for Char-Op' is the criteria for banning.

Dracons
2010-06-06, 01:21 PM
Yeah... games that ban wizards. I played a game where the DM didn't allow arcane magic except Bards. He said his world was very rare with magic.

What a shock to find out that just about every major bad guy, and even minor, were wizards. Yet we couldn't read their spellbooks, as none of us knew how to read a spellbook. Go to a town to sell, and people attack us for being wizards, despite the fact we have saved them numoerous times from the evil wizards that always attacked them. Go fig.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-06, 01:22 PM
Again, another vote for: do not blanket ban or approve anything. Ask your players to state what they're planning on doing, and consider it on its own merits. A PrC that's otherwise broken might allow a player to play an otherwise awful base class. A feat that's broken when used with some things might not be if the player uses it on something weak. For example, Divine Metamagic (Persist Spell) is pretty damn broken, with the Cleric having things like Divine Favor and Divine Power that are ridiculous as 24 hour spells, but it the player just wants to Persist something flavorful on his character, that might be fine. Depends on the spell, in that case.

Khellendross
2010-06-06, 01:26 PM
My intention isn't to blanket ban but to take out the big ones. Candle of evocation and thought bottle for example or things that make you invincible like that twice fallen of shar thing.

Khellendross
2010-06-06, 01:27 PM
Or maybe I should rephrase myself. to be more like what things I'll keep an eye on for abuse.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-06, 01:31 PM
Candle of invocation you should watch out for.

Tainted scholar and Tainted Sorceror are both borked. Be careful in allowing them.

Incarnate construct template from Savage species. It has LA-2 Not LA- LA-2. There's a lot you can do with two free levels.

Be careful what forms people take if you allow shapechange and Polymorph.

That's about all I can say.

Prodan
2010-06-06, 01:33 PM
Yeah... games that ban wizards. I played a game where the DM didn't allow arcane magic except Bards. He said his world was very rare with magic.

What a shock to find out that just about every major bad guy, and even minor, were wizards. Yet we couldn't read their spellbooks, as none of us knew how to read a spellbook. Go to a town to sell, and people attack us for being wizards, despite the fact we have saved them numoerous times from the evil wizards that always attacked them. Go fig.

Wipe the miserable town off the face of the planet. That'll teach them for treating you like you were evil.

tiercel
2010-06-06, 01:35 PM
Seriously. Don't allow anything with blanket approval. Be in the loop for all the players' character creation. Don't ban things outright, see how they intend to use them and allow or disallow them on that basis. (Some things will have to look very hard to find a basis that would see them allowed, of course...)

+1

The danger from cherry-picking lots of supplements isn't so much that supplements are more broken than core, it's that someone might cherry-pick from amongst things you might be less familiar with and wind up, between core+supplement, with some kind of concentrated/combo brokenation.

This said, most players really aren't malicious greedy people who are out to destroy your game. Mainly you are really looking to *help* players who see/have a "cool idea" and keep their cool idea from turning into a one-trick pony character who they will be asking to replace three game sessions from now when they get bored of it.

The other thing you will want to be keeping an eye out for is wildly *different* levels of optimization between your players. While this isn't always necessarily a huge problem (some people just enjoy more casually put-together "beer and pretzels" builds and others feel the need to tweak), you just want to avoid the players of less-optimized characters from feeling outshined all the time in everything by their more-optimized partymates ... and avoid the players of the more-optimized characters from feeling resentful of their "weak" more casually-designed companions.

*Personally*, the BoED/BoVD send up red flags for me because there is more in there that is potentially problematic than most books -- some in terms of balance, but also particularly in terms of play. Being Exalted is kinda a big deal, read: "paladin code of conduct issues dialed up to 11."

Generally, I just try to look for mechanics/tricks that act as major multipliers, widely open-ended use of a single mechanic with few restrictions, or "getting something for nothing/very little".

In the first case you have things like incense of meditation or, of course, the necklace of prayer beads for specifically level/HD sensitive spells.

In the second case polymorph is a huge, glaring example. (Even druid wildshape, to a lesser degree -- animal forms are somewhat less wide-open, especially if you are careful about not allowing equipment to just morph along for the ride. Still.)

In the third case, it can be a one-level dip into a frontloaded PrC, Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell (something that turns an only occasionally useful resource -- Turn Undead -- into a constantly useful and *very* powerful ability), possibly even metamagic rods. Oh, and "divine inheritance" -- that many divine spellcasters get their spell lists expanded for *free* with every expansion you allow into the game, whereas most other characters at least have to expend some form of limited resource to take advantage of the new choices.

But... yeah, all this rambling aside, there's relatively little I would just absolutely blanket *ban*. Just be involved in the creation process, try to spot any problems at the time of creation, and let your players know that if something happens that upsets the game that you reserve the right to have a particular item/class/spell/build reconsidered, that's all.

Pluto
2010-06-06, 01:39 PM
I ban or limit anything that can rewrite its ability list daily. But that's more because it eliminates a playstyle that I can't abide than it is for balance.

But if you're looking for things which are overtly broken, Polymorph and Planar Binding/Gate effects of any sort are at the top of the list. Unfortunately, they're staples of the genre, so adjudication typically turns into asking your players not to be ***** about them.

The biggest things I'd say should be blanket-banned without exception are effects which eliminate nontrivial experience/material costs (ie. Dweomerkeeper, StP Erudite) or which reduce metamagic costs (ie. Divine Metamagic, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix). Those typically are the easiest ways to break the game in two.

Khellendross
2010-06-06, 01:42 PM
I figured out what I am going to do. Thank you everyone.

Boci
2010-06-06, 01:44 PM
If your group wants a balanced party, they need to decide what tier they are playing at. Do they all want to be reality rewriting Gods, lowly men who try to be heroes against seemingly impossible odds, or somewhere in between?

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-06, 01:48 PM
Again, another vote for: do not blanket ban or approve anything. Ask your players to state what they're planning on doing, and consider it on its own merits. A PrC that's otherwise broken might allow a player to play an otherwise awful base class. A feat that's broken when used with some things might not be if the player uses it on something weak. For example, Divine Metamagic (Persist Spell) is pretty damn broken, with the Cleric having things like Divine Favor and Divine Power that are ridiculous as 24 hour spells, but it the player just wants to Persist something flavorful on his character, that might be fine. Depends on the spell, in that case.

Agree completel here, exspecially the bolded part. I remember we had good times with our blaster sorcerer incantatrix...

One should ban things case-by-case, IMO.

Khellendross
2010-06-06, 01:49 PM
For the most part my character creation guide is done. It will need tweaks but I'm happy with it.

Pika...
2010-06-06, 01:50 PM
BOOOOO!!!!

I get that a lot...



also: don't forget magic of incarnum

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that one.

Boci
2010-06-06, 01:55 PM
I get that a lot...

To be honest I was more worried about that one:


Anything I recognize from seeing often in Optimization forums/threads.

Just because it was used in a powerful/gamebreaking build doesn't mean you platers are going to use it in the same way.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-06, 02:03 PM
I get that a lot...

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that one.
You ban the two best books ever published for 3.5, what do you expect?

The Vorpal Tribble
2010-06-06, 02:34 PM
I'm probably the most lenient DM there is in regard to books and such. As long as it's made by Wizards or Bruce R. Cordell I allow it.

I've yet to have any characters which really out showed the other and no matter what their equipment or cheesy stuff they still seem to have problems powergaming in my games.

I can usually adapt to anything, and my games are equally divided between fight, social and puzzle, so everyone has a chance to shine.

Now, saying that, I do ban certain things because they irk me or they always seem to be played in the 'exact' same manner:

Elves
- Yes, all elves. I redesigned the fey-touched to be a +0 LA to be their replacement. Want drow, come from an earth fey, want aquatic elves, you're momma was a water fey, etc.

Tieflings
- Most of the time anyways. Every game I've played or DM'd with a Tiefling char the play has been agonizing in one aspect or the other. They come in three flavors only it seems:
#1. Whiny Emos (why did my mother cast me out? WHY OH WHY?)
#2. Blood-Thirsty Demon Wannabees (takin' after m'daddy!)
#3. Sweet and Sappy Bad-Ass (I renounce my demon heritage, and want to spread love, but if you even look at me wrong I'll still tear your head off for whatever reason)

Thri-kreen Monks
- Though just adding up all the attacks annoy me (especially double-weapons), they can break the monk believe it or not)

Warlocks
- Will you PLEASE show more imagination than zapping anything that gets in your way and choosing the EXACT same spells everyone else I've ever played with did?

Emmerask
2010-06-06, 02:43 PM
Spells:
full ban:
All Polymorph/like spells, Planar Binding, Streamers, Astral Projection, Shivering Touch, Robe Trick, Celerity, Contingency

modification:
Wish only specifically mentioned is allowed.
Contact other Plane and their likes all questions regarding the future will be answered with maybe/duno
Explosive Runes, only one time damage if multiple explode.
Fire Seeds (fire bombs) canīt all be put in a sack and thrown at ones.

Planes: there are no planes with faster or slower time and you canīt create one either:smallwink:

The Glyphstone
2010-06-06, 02:52 PM
You ban the two best books ever published for 3.5, what do you expect?

On the other hand, he also banned one of the worst books ever published for 3.5, so props there.:smallbiggrin:

The Vorpal Tribble
2010-06-06, 02:54 PM
On the other hand, he also banned one of the worst books ever published for 3.5, so props there.:smallbiggrin:
No kidding.

Ardent, handful of powers and the Shadow Eft are all that I use from Complete Psi.

molten_dragon
2010-06-06, 04:26 PM
I only allow core + the tome of battle without approval. That's mostly because those are the books that I'm most familiar with, and I know the ramifications of just about anything that's in them. I'm pretty free with allowing other stuff (even broken stuff) as long as I can look at it and know what I'm in for ahead of time. Generally, the only things I'll outright say no on are things that would lead to some type of infinite loop (pun-pun tricks, candle of invocation, 1d2 crusaders, tainted sorcerer, etc.). Of course one of the caveats of games I run is that the player's level of optimization determines enemies' level of optimization, and they all know I'm a better powergamer than they are, so no one tries to break anything too badly.

Eldan
2010-06-06, 04:31 PM
Tieflings

Oh, come on. Tieflings are people too. I'm calling the Tiefling Defamation League. :smalltongue:

Flickerdart
2010-06-06, 04:34 PM
Warlocks
- Will you PLEASE show more imagination than zapping anything that gets in your way and choosing the EXACT same spells everyone else I've ever played with did?
Warlocks don't get very many Invocations that are good, and can't choose very many, so you can hardly blame them.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 04:38 PM
Warlocks don't get very many Invocations that are good, and can't choose very many, so you can hardly blame them.Go dragonfire adept, instead.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-06, 04:42 PM
I usually require DM approval of particular content, instead of banning it outright. Many easily-breakable classes and abilities can be played without breaking the game, with a modicum of player restraint. Archivist is a prime example.

Greenish
2010-06-06, 04:45 PM
I ban or limit anything that can rewrite its ability list daily. But that's more because it eliminates a playstyle that I can't abide than it is for balance.Why do you hate Chameleons? :smallcool:

You ban the two best books ever published for 3.5, what do you expect?Which ones you refer to, out of ToB, ToM and MoI?

Elves
- Yes, all elves. I redesigned the fey-touched to be a +0 LA to be their replacement.Go you!


One thing not yet mentioned is the dreaded Dust of Cheesing and Choking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#dustofSneezingandChoking). If your players try to sneak it past you, smack 'em with DMG.

Amphetryon
2010-06-06, 04:51 PM
Which ones you refer to, out of ToB, ToM and MoI?I suspect ToM is the odd-book-out, what with the printer error leaving it 2/3 blank and all... :smallwink:

Greenish
2010-06-06, 04:55 PM
I suspect ToM is the odd-book-out, what with the printer error leaving it 2/3 blank and all... :smallwink:Indeed, I would put the books to the order by the number of new base classes in them too, so ToB is the best with three, then MoI with two and at last ToM with just one, albeit a great one.

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:00 PM
Indeed, I would put the books to the order by the number of new base classes in them too, so ToB is the best with three, then MoI with two and at last ToM with just one, albeit a great one.

It takes 5 minutes to customize a recharge mechanics for the shadowcasters, which makes them worth at least half a point IMO.

Gametime
2010-06-06, 05:16 PM
It takes 5 minutes to customize a recharge mechanics for the shadowcasters, which makes them worth at least half a point IMO.

That online fix from the book's author isn't bad, either. A decently-built shadowcaster is basically a sorcerer with a vastly more limited selection of spells; there are plenty of ways to make that work.

Even the truenamer isn't terrible if you're allowed to supremely cheese up your skill checks or work out a less painfully scaling DC, though I'm led to believe that even when functional they get fairly boring quickly.

Boci
2010-06-06, 05:20 PM
That online fix from the book's author isn't bad, either. A decently-built shadowcaster is basically a sorcerer with a vastly more limited selection of spells; there are plenty of ways to make that work.

Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?


Even the truenamer isn't terrible if you're allowed to supremely cheese up your skill checks or work out a less painfully scaling DC, though I'm led to believe that even when functional they get fairly boring quickly.

I made a fixed that turned truespeaking into a level check. This allowed me to lower the DC without worrying about PCs boosting their modifier to obscene levels. The law that states only 1 of your "spells" can be active at any one time if what really kills the truenamer though.

JaronK
2010-06-06, 05:24 PM
I often ban all Tier 1 and 2 casters. Makes life much easier. I also ban Inspire Awe for Bards and anything that can lead to an infinite loop.

Really, though, I balance by telling my players what power level I'd like them to be at and then double checking their stuff to make sure it's appropriate.

JaronK

Oslecamo
2010-06-06, 05:31 PM
Incarnate construct template from Savage species. It has LA-2 Not LA- LA-2. There's a lot you can do with two free levels.


Nitpick, but altough incarnate construct says it has LA-2, it also says the LA from the construct you apply it to can't be reduced below zero, so you never actualy get free levels.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 05:46 PM
Nitpick, but altough incarnate construct says it has LA-2, it also says the LA from the construct you apply it to can't be reduced below zero, so you never actualy get free levels.That's where adding +2 LA in templates comes in handy.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 05:56 PM
I ban any books I don't own in meatspace (ergo, anything except Core, Libris Mortis, and Draconomicon). Beyond that, I have a looooong list of spells I've specifically banned for flavor reasons or because I flat-out didn't like them.

lsfreak
2010-06-06, 05:56 PM
Sounds interesting. Do you have a link?


Check here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/184955-shadowcaster-fixes-mouseferatu.html#post3273239).

The easiest way to ensure no one will be too powerful or too underpowered is to ban all classes except ToB + psionics (and throw out divine mind, soulknife, and erudite). There are a few tricks that are outright broken, but they tend to be harder to pull off, and perhaps more importantly, harder to pull off accidentally (a new player playing druid can accidentally replace the fighter, for example).

Other than that, there is no such thing as good blanket bans. Stay on the forums, read threads, learn what optimizing is and how much of it is acceptable. Take into consideration the group you're with and how they play when implementing bans, taking it on a case-by-case basis. Blanket bans almost never end well, unless you agree ahead of time to do something specific and one-time only (like psionics+ToB, or everything non-Core, or only T3).

Oslecamo
2010-06-06, 05:57 PM
That's where adding +2 LA in templates comes in handy.

Meh, you're still losing the construct goodies so you get a free +2 LA template in return for a crappy base race.

Dracons
2010-06-06, 05:58 PM
This I gotta read Psycho....

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:00 PM
Beyond that, I have a looooong list of spells I've specifically banned for flavor reasons

Do you give your players a chance to reflavour these?


Check here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/184955-shadowcaster-fixes-mouseferatu.html#post3273239).

The easiest way to ensure no one will be too powerful or too underpowered is to ban all classes except ToB + psionics (and throw out divine mind, soulknife, and erudite).

Thanks. When I use blanket bans I generally ban anything above tier 3, which the expectation that lower tier classes are to be dibbed only.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 06:02 PM
Check here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/184955-shadowcaster-fixes-mouseferatu.html#post3273239).

The easiest way to ensure no one will be too powerful or too underpowered is to ban all classes except ToB + psionics (and throw out divine mind, soulknife, and erudite). There are a few tricks that are outright broken, but they tend to be harder to pull off, and perhaps more importantly, harder to pull off accidentally (a new player playing druid can accidentally replace the fighter, for example).

Other than that, there is no such thing as good blanket bans. Stay on the forums, read threads, learn what optimizing is and how much of it is acceptable. Take into consideration the group you're with and how they play when implementing bans, taking it on a case-by-case basis. Blanket bans almost never end well, unless you agree ahead of time to do something specific and one-time only (like psionics+ToB, or everything non-Core, or only T3).I'm the solo player of a 4-person party he's DMing for, if that says anything. See here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155173).


Meh, you're still losing the construct goodies so you get a free +2 LA template in return for a crappy base race.So you turn a +0 LA race into a +2 LA race on what essentially amounts to a blank slate for +0 LA.

Sounds good to me.

drengnikrafe
2010-06-06, 06:05 PM
I find myself blessed. None of my PCs an optimize or abuse their capabilities. We had a druid once. I spent most of his time in the form of a badger. Wizards and sorcerers? All become blasters. My games balance themselves.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:07 PM
This I gotta read Psycho....

Very well: (Note that these are for arcane spellcasters only; I don't have quite enough experience with divine spellcasters to handle them, but I do have houserules for shapeshifting spells.)

Animate Dead
Astral Projection
Awaken Undead
Banishment
Blink
Clone
Command Undead
Contact Other Plane
Control Undead
Create Undead
Create Greater Undead
Dimensional Lock
Dismissal
Disrupt Undead
Ethreal Jaunt
Ethrealness
Gate
Halt Undead
Haunt Shift
Incorporeal Enhancement
Incorporeal Nova
Kiss Of The Vampire
Magic Circle Against Alignment
Mordekainen's Disjunction
Necrotic Burst
Necrotic Termination
Plague Of Undead
Lesser Planar Binding
Planar Binding
Greater Planar Binding
Plane Shift
Protection From Alignment
Soul Bind
Spawn Screen
Summon Monster Line
Summon Undead Line
Teleport
Greater Teleport
Teleport Object
Teleportation Circle
Time Stop
Trap The Soul
Undeath To Death
Veil Of Undeath

For Divine Spellcasters I have only:

Necrotic Termination
Summon Undead Line


Do you give your players a chance to reflavour these?

Flavor here being "the arcane cannot interact with the undead or the planes," so no.

Dracons
2010-06-06, 06:09 PM
Not much of a necromancer lover are ye.





EDIT: I thought Incarnate Construct could only apply to contruct creatures...

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:10 PM
Not much of a necromancer lover are ye.

Divine spellcasters can do necromancy all they want. Arcane spellcasters can keep their filthy mits off the gods' domain.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:11 PM
Flavor here being "the arcane cannot interact with the undead or the planes," so no.

I can understand the first one but what do you have against arcane necromancers? What if you flavoured yours as a puppet master who used corpses as his puppets because they had no minds to resist being controlled?

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:15 PM
I can understand the first one but what do you have against arcane necromancers? What if you flavoured yours as a puppet master who used corpses as his puppets because they had no minds to resist being controlled?

Because that would only make any sense for Animate Dead. Create Undead and Create Greater Undead have much fancier critters to deal with.

Not to mention I'd have to recreate Zombies and Skeletons as Constructs and yadda yadda yadda too much work.

awa
2010-06-06, 06:16 PM
But again incarnate constructs not by itself broken its broken when combined with another template and a 0 la race if used as intended (on a golem) its definitely not broken.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:17 PM
Because that would only make any sense for Animate Dead. Create Undead and Create Greater Undead have much fancier critters to deal with.

So as he grows in power he learns to add abilities to his puppets?


Not to mention I'd have to recreate Zombies and Skeletons as Constructs and yadda yadda yadda too much work.

You don't have to. They are similar enough, and any differences are due to his uncommon style of magic.

Eldan
2010-06-06, 06:18 PM
So, if I see this correctly, you ban everything involving other planes?

Or, well, a lot of it. Not all.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:19 PM
So, if I see this correctly, you ban everything involving other planes?

Or, well, a lot of it. Not all.

Just for arcane magic by the look of it, which is not a bad stab at a fix at first glance.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:19 PM
So, if I see this correctly, you ban everything involving other planes?

Or, well, a lot of it. Not all.

Yep. And the "not all" bit comes from not knowing the core spellbook like the back of my hand.


So as he grows in power he learns to add abilities to his puppets?

That doesn't explain incorporeal undead.


You don't have to. They are similar enough, and any differences are due to his uncommon style of magic.

Rebuke Undead, or anything else that specifically targets undead. Why would it work on puppets? And why would negative energy heal them?

Also, because I want to make arcane spellcasters miserable, and therefore any advantages they have will be surgically removed and have vinegar poured on the wound.

Eldan
2010-06-06, 06:21 PM
Well, you don't seem to ban extraplanar spaces, like Secret Chest. That's the first thing I noticed, but there's probably more. Oh well, as long as you ban in specific cases, you can easily keep the game together like that.

I wouldn't agree with it, as I love the planes, but to each their own.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:23 PM
Well, you don't seem to ban extraplanar spaces, like Secret Chest. That's the first thing I noticed, but there's probably more. Oh well, as long as you ban in specific cases, you can easily keep the game together like that.

I wouldn't agree with it, as I love the planes, but to each their own.

I still use the planes; its just arcane spellcasters that can't touch 'em.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 06:24 PM
EDIT: I thought Incarnate Construct could only apply to contruct creatures...I could have sworn that warforged were constructs, being living constructs and all...

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:24 PM
That doesn't explain incorporeal undead.

Can't think of an explanation for their use right now, but they could always not be used.


Rebuke Undead. That's the main problem. Why would it work on puppets?

For unknown reason's the divine energy reacts with the magic used to control the puppets.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:26 PM
For unknown reason's the divine energy reacts with the magic used to control the puppets.

And now we're deep into Handwavium territory. Na ga happen. No undead for you, Mr. Wizard.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-06, 06:29 PM
And now we're deep into Handwavium territory. Na ga happen. No undead for you, Mr. Wizard.Necromancers have generally been considered wizards in virtually every piece of fantasy I've read. Priests I could see dealing with demons and devils, but not so much undead (aside from vampires, of course, though they're usually considered demon-possessed bodies of the dead).

I mostly see mages raising and dealing with undead as allies, while priests stamp them down.

D&D just does it very strangely.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:30 PM
And now we're deep into Handwavium territory. Na ga happen. No undead for you, Mr. Wizard.

Its a game, you need to handwaves thing away or else you will spend the whole session wondering why you're character does not bleed, why being reduced to 5 hp does not make your full attack any less dangerous, ect.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:32 PM
Necromancers have generally been considered wizards in virtually every piece of fantasy I've read. Priests I could see dealing with demons and devils, but not so much undead (aside from vampires, of course, though they're usually considered demon-possessed bodies of the dead).

I mostly see mages raising and dealing with undead as allies, while priests stamp them down.

D&D just does it very strangely.

*shrug* Fantasy has no rules. In all of the settings of my own creation, the undead draw their power from the local Grim Reaper equivalent. Why he allows this is unknown, mainly because I tend to give my dieties somewhat Lovecraftian mindsets. Maybe he just thinks it's funny.


Its a game, you need to handwaves thing away or else you will spend the whole session wondering why you're character does not bleed, why being reduced to 5 hp does not make your full attack any less dangerous, ect.

What makes you think I don't have my PCs bleed? As for the second one, maybe I should come up with a penalty mechanic based on how much HP you have left...

Oslecamo
2010-06-06, 06:35 PM
I could have sworn that warforged were constructs, being living constructs and all...

Living contructs indeed. It's not very clear if incarnate construct would combine with it.

And heck if we're using Eberron standards then free +2LA is nothing compared to something like planar sheperd.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:40 PM
What makes you think I don't have my PCs bleed?

Such a system would be incredable complicated and it is doubtful it would add much to compensate for all the extra work.


As for the second one, maybe I should come up with a penalty mechanic based on how much HP you have left...

If you think you can make such a system go ahead, if you succeed melee will now be able to debuff, which is good.

But my main point is that reflavouring is more adaptable than you seem to be giving it credit for, and If as a player I put effort into creating an necromancer that satisfied your flavour rules and you just handwaived it away with "It doesn't make sense" in D&D I would be pretty annoyed. Sure you don't have to accept it, but I'd expect a better reason.

For another example, for the "no affecting plains" rules, what if I was insane and summoned forth enteties of my own mind to bargain with.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:44 PM
For another example, for the "no affecting plains" rules, what if I was insane and summoned forth enteties of my own mind to bargain with.

The cosmos simply doesn't work that way in my setting for one, (which IS an acceptable explaination, or anyone would be capable of doing anything and the game would be a waste of my time) and for two, the closest thing to what you decribe that DOES exist in my setting is called Riftspawn. And they want to eat you.

Arcane spellcasters in my setting are essentially the universe's buttmonkey, and in compensation they get to shoot lightning out of their ass.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 06:46 PM
The cosmos simply doesn't work that way in my setting for one, (which IS an acceptable explaination, or anyone would be capable of doing anything and the game would be a waste of my time) and for two, the closest thing to what you decribe that DOES exist in my setting is called Riftspawn. And they want to eat you.

Arcane spellcasters in my setting are essentially the universe's buttmonkey, and in compensation they get to shoot lightning out of their ass.

I don't exactly understand how, with your ban list, arcane casters could be the universe's butt monkey; they've still got the best spells.

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:47 PM
The cosmos simply doesn't work that way in my setting for one

But I'm not talking about the cosmos, I'm talking about my mind, and my very rare/unique side affect of my insanity of temporarily being able to give a material form to the beasts that stalk my mind?


Arcane spellcasters in my setting are essentially the universe's buttmonkey, and in compensation they get to shoot lightning out of their ass.

What if I want to be an exeption?

The Glyphstone
2010-06-06, 06:47 PM
Arcane spellcasters in my setting are essentially the universe's buttmonkey, and in compensation they get to shoot lightning out of their ass.

Unless you also let them shoot fireballs from their eyes, that's unfair and underpowered. Freeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmm!!!!!

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:47 PM
I don't exactly understand how, with your ban list, arcane casters could be the universe's butt monkey; they've still got the best spells.

Because you don't get to see the part where every single time they cast a spell there's a chance that Cthulhu will pop out of nowhere and eat them.

Or the part where they're constantly hallucinating.


But I'm not talking about the cosmos, I'm talking about my mind, and my very rare/unique side affect of my insanity of temporarily being able to give a material form to the beasts that stalk my mind?

When you figure out how to do that IRL, I'll consider letting you do it in my setting.


What if I want to be an exeption?

Too bad.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 06:51 PM
Because you don't get to see the part where every single time they cast a spell there's a chance that Cthulhu will pop out of nowhere and eat them.

Or the part where they're constantly hallucinating.


So in your games, you let people play arcane casters, but punish them for doing so? That hardly seems fun; you don't punish fighters for swinging swords, do you?

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:52 PM
So you're one of the types of people who let players do something, and then punish them for it, right? Generally, that's not fun.

It's not PURE punishment. After all, there's the XP. Besides, going crazy can be a hoot if you play it right. And how big your Cthulhu is and how likely he is to appear is dependant on how big a spell you cast.


So in your games, you let people play arcane casters, but punish them for doing so? That hardly seems fun; you don't punish fighters for swinging swords, do you?

OTHER than the fact that they become essentially useless at higher levels? Well, I do make it so that things that affect a player also affect anything they're carrying. (For example, a fireball could very well melt all your armor off.)

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:54 PM
When you figure out how to do that IRL, I'll consider letting you do it in my setting.

Really, thats your rebuttal? Its magic. Energy is concerted into matter, shapped by my own insanity.


Too bad.

Have you considered allowing PCs to work with your own flavour?

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-06, 06:55 PM
Ban core. It makes for a surprisingly refreshing game.

Doing skills must be really difficult, and I imagine that prerequisites are quite a bit harder to meet... Oh, and all that equipment is gone, so you've got barely any armor and weapons. And even if you get them from other sources, you aren't proficient because proficiency feats are in core! :smalltongue:

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 06:55 PM
It's not PURE punishment. After all, there's the XP. Besides, going crazy can be a hoot if you play it right. And how big your Cthulhu is and how likely he is to appear is dependant on how big a spell you cast.

That's still punishing players for doing something. It's akin to making fighters summon Fighterthulhu whenever they use a fighter bonus feat, or making all barbarians frenzied berserkers with none of the benefits and no way to snap out of it and stop beating your wizard to death with your fighters recently lobotimized skull.

EDIT: Fireball melting armor is both unrealistic and explicitly against the rules for damaging magic items, since you need to roll a 1 on your save to damage magic items, and even then most DMs don't follow it.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 06:56 PM
Really, thats your rebuttal? Its magic. Energy is concerted into matter, shapped by my own insanity.

Not everyone plays with magic as distilled Handwavium. In my settings magic always has very specific things it can and cannot do.


EDIT: Fireball melting armor is both unrealistic...

Being momentarily exposed to metal-liquifying levels of heat and as a result having your armor turned to slag is unrealistic?


...and explicitly against the rules...

I'm the DM. The rules are whatever I say they are.

Emmerask
2010-06-06, 06:58 PM
But I'm not talking about the cosmos, I'm talking about my mind, and my very rare/unique side affect of my insanity of temporarily being able to give a material form to the beasts that stalk my mind?


dm to you: "You laugh in mad glee as you see your minds creations maul the enemies into tiny bits and blood splatters everywhere"
dm to the rest of the party: "The mad wizard utters some strange words and begins to giggle and point at the monsters but you only see these creatures advancing at you."
*your turn FightyMcFighter :smallwink:

well you are insane after all :smalltongue:

Boci
2010-06-06, 06:58 PM
Not everyone plays with magic as distilled Handwavium. In my settings magic always has very specific things it can and cannot do.

Believe it or not I cannot come up with a character concept that fits the flavour of your game setting if I do not know it. The question wasn't using any of my examples as conrete character concepts, I was asking it in general.


well you are insane after all :smalltongue:

What's arcane power going to do to a race that can be driven mad by mundane power?

Axolotl
2010-06-06, 06:59 PM
Have you considered allowing PCs to work with your own flavour?Saying "I want to be the exception." isn't working with the flavour. It's working against it.


On Topic: I'm seriously considering banning Clerics/Druids/Wizards/Sorcerors for my next campaign and only letting people play the various specialist classes. My only concern would be how it would affect the PCs powerlevel.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:01 PM
dm to you: "You laugh in mad glee as you see your minds creations tare the enemies into tiny bits and blood splatters everywhere"
dm to the rest of the party: "The mad wizard utters some strange words and begins to giggle and point at the monsters but you only see these creatures advancing at you."
*your turn FightyMcFighter :smallwink:

well you are insane after all :smalltongue:

Heh. Truth be told, this is quite a possible occurance with any particularly high level mage in my setting. They only get more loony as their power grows.

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:02 PM
Saying "I want to be the exception." isn't working with the flavour. It's working against it.

"I want to be an exception, here is a 500-1,00 word background story explaining exactly how and why I am one" is working with the flavour of the campaign.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:04 PM
"I want to be an exception, here is a 500-1,00 word background story explaining exactly how and why I am one" is working with the flavour of the campaign.

If they could provide a lengthy explaination on why their character should work like X, I would read it, consider it's points, and make my decision based on that. But I wouldn't allow them to get away with whatever they'd like just because they asked politely and at length.

Axolotl
2010-06-06, 07:04 PM
"I want to be an exception, here is a 500-1,00 word background story explaining exactly how and why I am one" is working with the flavour of the campaign.Not really, you're just working hard to ignore the flavour, but your still fundementally ignoring it.

Emmerask
2010-06-06, 07:04 PM
"I want to be an exception, here is a 500-1,00 word background story explaining exactly how and why I am one" is working with the flavour of the campaign.


Or you could just create a cleric specialised in necromancy ?

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 07:05 PM
Being momentarily exposed to metal-liquifying levels of heat and as a result having your armor turned to slag is unrealistic?

Yes, it is. Stuff doesn't melt from an instant, split second exposure to heat, because no object is that good at conducting heat.

As for making the PC go so crazy he can't even tell what he's doing: Are you serious? Why do you even let characters play casters if you are going to punish them so heavily they might as well be NPCs, since they have no control over their own actions?

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:07 PM
Not really, you're just working hard to ignore the flavour, but your still fundementally ignoring it.

Not really. No necromancery or planar summoning creates a niche for wizard minions, which was filled up by the necromancers corpse pupetteers.


Or you could just create a cleric specialised in necromancy ?

I prefer arcane spells and I can rarely flavour my devotion to my diety in a way that satisfies the DM.

The_Snark
2010-06-06, 07:07 PM
So in your games, you let people play arcane casters, but punish them for doing so? That hardly seems fun; you don't punish fighters for swinging swords, do you?

Um. A lot of people enjoy playing characters who are very powerful but suffer from consequences like growing insanity or being hunted by horrible monsters as a result of using that power too much. You yourself noted that the arcane spellcasters still possess most of the best spells; adding drawbacks to compensate is a legitimate way of helping to balance things out.

It might not be to everyone's taste, but just because you personally don't care for it doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:08 PM
Yes, it is. Stuff doesn't melt from an instant, split second exposure to heat, because no object is that good at conducting heat.

I'm pretty sure the A-Bomb is pretty damn good at atomizing things from sheer heat...


As for making the PC go so crazy he can't even tell what he's doing: Are you serious? Why do you even let characters play casters if you are going to punish them so heavily they might as well be NPCs, since they have no control over their own actions?

The crazy isn't an "always on" type of thing. And it's rarely a "I believe that I've actually managed to kill a room full of people" thing (unless they truely embrace the crazy, in which case they probably don't have long to live as their own magic consumes them and they become Riftfallen).

It's more of a "I sometimes see people that aren't there. Sometimes corpses and furniture talk to me. I see movement in the corner of my eyes. I hear disembodied noises. I've had lengthy conversations with an incomprehensible being that was never there." thing.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 07:10 PM
The crazy isn't an "always on" type of thing. And it's rarely a "I believe that I've actually managed to kill a room full of people" thing (unless they truely embrace the crazy, in which case they probably don't have long to live as their own magic consumes them and they become Riftfallen).

It's more of a "I sometimes see people that aren't there. Sometimes corpses and furniture talk to me. I see movement in the corner of my eyes. I hear disembodied noises. I've had lengthy conversations with an incomprehensible being that was never there." thing.

See, that's the thing: That's still making it so they aren't getting to play their character, and punishing them for wanting to try something. It seems like it serves little purpose besides making it less fun to play wizards, and bringing them to a reasonable level/banning them would be a lot better.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:11 PM
See, that's the thing: That's still making it so they aren't getting to play their character, and punishing them for wanting to try something. It seems like it serves little purpose besides making it less fun to play wizards, and bringing them to a reasonable level/banning them would be a lot better.

Fun is subjective. I for one would find the slow decline into insanity a blast.

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:12 PM
If they could provide a lengthy explaination on why their character should work like X, I would read it, consider it's points, and make my decision based on that. But I wouldn't allow them to get away with whatever they'd like just because they asked politely and at length.

I never said you should, just that automatically discarding any reflavouring, or doing so with such reasons as "Its unrealistic" in D&D is annoying for a player.


I'm pretty sure the A-Bomb is pretty damn good at atomizing things from sheer heat...

Doubt fireball is as powerful.

Zeful
2010-06-06, 07:15 PM
"I want to be an exception, here is a 500-1,00 word background story explaining exactly how and why I am one" is working with the flavour of the campaign.

No it's not. It's you providing justification for your demands.

If I created a setting in which Arcane magic was impossible. No qualifiers or exceptions, and you wrote a 1,000 word document explaining how I the ultimate creator of the setting is wrong and you are the single Arcane caster in the setting, you are not working with me. You are spitting in my face as you make demands that I am under no obligation to accept and you are in no position to enforce.

If you instead came to me with a 1,000 word document explaining how you are the servant of a strange, weak and new god, which carried a footnote that an Arcane caster would be the best representation of this god's abilities through you, then, while you are still casting aspirations on my setting, you are at least giving me something entertaining to read, which might get your character concept approved.

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:17 PM
No it's not. It's you providing justification for your demands.

Ofcourse I am, but I am using the flavour of camaign in doing so.


If I created a setting in which Arcane magic was impossible.

I am not concerned with unrealistic examples.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:22 PM
I am not concerned with unrealistic examples.

Eh. I've strongly considered banning arcane magic outright, but I thought the Cthulhu thing was funnier.


Doubt fireball is as powerful.

True enough, but there's a sizable gulf between "hot enough to instantly liquify steel" and "hot enough to reduce everything within its radius to vapor."

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:24 PM
Eh. I've strongly considered banning arcane magic outright, but I thought the Cthulhu thing was funnier.

If I was told arcane magic was banned outright I wouldn't bother trying to reflavour any full caster unless I knew the DM really well and knew they accepted large amount of flavouring. But with your "No influencing the dead or plains" there seems to be plenty of room to have a necromancer who doesn't control undead.



True enough, but there's a sizable gulf between "hot enough to instantly liquify steel" and "hot enough to reduce everything within its radius to vapor."

True, iron melts at, what 3000 degrees, so you could probably find a physics major who could tell you roughly the temperature required to melt/diform iron in a spplit second blast.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:26 PM
If I was told arcane magic was banned outright I wouldn't bother trying to reflavour any full caster unless I knew the DM really well and knew they accepted large amount of flavouring. But with your "No influencing the dead or plains" there seems to be plenty of room to have a necromancer who doesn't control undead.

What if you knew that the setting was ruled by particularly assholish gods who treated the universe as a complex game of chess and would be very annoyed (as in, smiting-annoyed) by your attempts at generic-brand undead?


True, iron melts at, what 3000 degrees, so you could probably find a physics major who could tell you roughly the temperature required to melt/diform iron in a spplit second blast.

Or, since no specific temperature is supplied for fireball, I could simply say that its heat is listed as "sufficient."

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:30 PM
What if you knew that the setting was ruled by particularly assholish gods who treated the universe as a complex game of chess and would be very annoyed (as in, smiting-annoyed) by your attempts at generic-brand undead?

Would my character know that? Again, without knowing the full details I cannot make a sample character concept.


Or, since no specific temperature is supplied for fireball, I could simply say that its heat is listed as "sufficient."

But you have no idea what other affect such a hot split second fire would have.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:32 PM
Would my character know that? Again, without knowing the full details I cannot make a sample character concept.)

No, they wouldn't know it. All they would know is that generic-brand undead is simply impossible, in the same way turning "left" into "cheese" is impossible.


But you have no idea what other affect such a hot split second fire would have.

True enough. But chances are it would be instantly fatal to anyone involved and it certaintly wouldn't allow a Reflex save. But magic is funny like that, and it's simply too much work to figure out the physics. (Plus, I'm a furry and I'd rather spare the catgirls.:smalltongue:)

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:33 PM
No, they wouldn't know it. All they would know is that generic-brand undead is simply impossible, in the same way turning "left" into "cheese" is impossible.

But I'm not making undead, just using ropes of energy to direct the movements of undead.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:35 PM
But I'm not making undead, just using ropes of energy to direct the movements of undead.

You're assuming of course that you're capable of doing such a thing.

Now, if you could figure out a way to crudely mimic that concept using existing and non-banned spells, I'm all for it. Or hey, maybe cast animate object on a corpse. Could work.

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:37 PM
You're assuming of course that you're capable of doing such a thing.

Now, if you could figure out a way to crudely mimic that concept using existing and non-banned spells, I'm all for it. Or hey, maybe cast animate object on a corpse. Could work.

A version of telekenises that requires me to implant a gem into the corpse to focus the magic onto but gives more greater control?

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:38 PM
A version of telekenises that requires me to implant a gem into the corpse to focus the magic onto but gives more greater control?

Maybe. Wouldn't be a refluffed animate dead, and it would cost constant Concentration checks, but I could see it happening.

(BTW, I do hope this arguement is still spiteless on your end. I consider such things a wonderful way to pass the time.)

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:40 PM
Maybe. Wouldn't be a refluffed animate dead, and it would cost constant Concentration checks, but I could see it happening.

That is a pretty good outcome, and pretty much my main point: no matter how absolute you see the flavour, others may not, and you should at least listen to their take on it.


(BTW, I do hope this arguement is still spiteless on your end. I consider such things a wonderful way to pass the time.)

Sure it is. I'm really happy with the character I probably would not have produced otherwise.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:42 PM
That is a pretty good outcome, and pretty much my main point: no matter how absolute you see the flavour, others may not, and you should at least listen to their take on it.

Of course I'll listen. Just be prepared for the answer to be "No" until you hit that sweet spot by trial and error.

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:43 PM
Of course I'll listen. Just be prepared for the answer to be "No" until you hit that sweet spot by trial and error.

Its just the first time I asked about reflavouring you answer seemed to imply to me that you felt any and all were impossible.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 07:49 PM
Its just the first time I asked about reflavouring you answer seemed to imply to me that you felt any and all were impossible.

It was largely the "for unknown reasons it works like X" that irked me.

Blame my Charisma dump stat.

(Also; aaawww, are we done arguing already? I was having fun.)

Boci
2010-06-06, 07:53 PM
It was largely the "for unknown reasons it works like X" that irked me.

Blame my Charisma dump stat.

Fair enough. I once played a wizard. Having a reasonable level of game mastery I was finished long before anyone else at the table so I started on a sample page from my spell book on how I learnt to cast colour spray (essentially a random set of matrixes and equations that looked cool). The DM gave me 150 XP to never do that again.


aawww, are we done arguing already? I was having fun.)

Well if you really want to you can help me iron out the details on the wizard who summons fourth enteties from his own insane mind and bargains with them for service.

Dracons
2010-06-06, 07:54 PM
I always wanted to play a crazy wizard. Not a HA HA HA HA! I'm chaotic evil so I get to kill people for fun! But other types. Like Obsessive about learning new spells, that he is even willing to dissict magical creatures to steal their magic powers, or seeing ghosts of all magic beings, that no normal person can. To have nightmares of being helpless despite all my power. It's not that big of a deal to play in a game where some schools or spells are banned if there is a legimiate reason WHY, and the DM plays that for all characters. I played in a game where all wizards/sorcerers and basically any arcane user was banned except Bard, because magic was just that rare in the world. Yet all the bad guys we fought were wizards of incredible power. We try to study their spellbooks, and people would chase us for being with the evil. He tried to say magic items wouldnt work unless we passed Use Magic Device checks, and this skill was so hard it take 4 skill points to gain one point, but we all decided not to play then. He changed his mind on that matter, but he just still made magic weapons not work, because they have to be /unlocked/. He at least made it somewhat clear how to unlock, but we all knew he hated it.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:00 PM
Well if you really want to you can help me iron out the details on the wizard who summons fourth enteties from his own insane mind and bargains with them for service.

Well the "summon worth creatures of insanity" part is easy given my setting. Just cast random spells until one appears. It's getting one to do anything but flat-out kill you that's the difficult part. A good portion of them are simply giant piles of crazy, but there are some sentient ones that you might be able to convince.

It won't be a simple "bind and bam, done" thing, though. It'd be a slow and painful process of a) beating them into submission so that they're even remotely interested in hearing your offer and b) convincing them in character (I kicked out Diplomacy and such things because it seemed to easy) why they should work for you instead of just killing themselves and returning to the Rifts.

Greenish
2010-06-06, 08:02 PM
Well if you really want to you can help me iron out the details on the wizard who summons fourth enteties from his own insane mind and bargains with them for service.That would make a great illusionist or a malconvoker.

In general, I'm with Psycho on this: if he wants to slap limits on arcane magic in his campaign, he can do it. "Undead armies" style necromancy wasn't wizards' strong point to begin with, and they sure as hell have other options aplenty.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:06 PM
In general, I'm with Psycho on this:

Y'know, I've been using this handle for over a decade, but for some reason it just feels really odd to be refered to by name on the Playground...:smallconfused:

Greenish
2010-06-06, 08:08 PM
Y'know, I've been using this handle for over a decade, but for some reason it just feels really odd to be refered to by name on the Playground...:smallconfused:Shall I call you Bob, then? :smallcool:

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:08 PM
Well the "summon worth creatures of insanity" part is easy given my setting. Just cast random spells until one appears. It's getting one to do anything but flat-out kill you that's the difficult part. A good portion of them are simply giant piles of crazy, but there are some sentient ones that you might be able to convince.

It won't be a simple "bind and bam, done" thing, though. It'd be a slow and painful process of a) beating them into submission so that they're even remotely interested in hearing your offer and b) convincing them in character (I kicked out Diplomacy and such things because it seemed to easy) why they should work for you instead of just killing themselves and returning to the Rifts.

Well remember this is me trying to reflavour planar ally, which has a casting time of 10 minutes, and a danager of the beast attacking me (since magic circle allows a save by RAW, although most likely not by RAI, assuming such a spell exists). I would need a bit more time to think of a credable reason for where the gold goes. Reflavouring it as a material component could work, you transform the gold into energy, then shape that energy into a beast's body, and implant a shard of my crazed mind into it to give it a consience.
Essentially I would be be calling reflavoured demons, wsho would very often try to eat me.


"Undead armies" style necromancy wasn't wizards' strong point to begin with, and they sure as hell have other options aplenty.

I'm not making an army, just a few puppets, who may or may not mechanically be undead, since the whole character concept mis not set in stone existing solely for this thread.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:10 PM
Shall I call you Bob, then? :smallcool:

Pass. It might just be a mental disconnect, since most of the forums I frequent on are black background/white text.


Well remember this is me trying to reflavour planar ally, which has a casting time of 10 minutes, and a danager of the beast attacking me (since magic circle allows a save by RAW, although most likely not by RAI, assuming such a spell exists). I would need a bit more time to think of a credable reason for where the gold goes. Reflavouring it as a material component could work, you transform the gold into energy, then shape that energy into a beast's body, and implant a shard of my crazed mind into it to give it a consience.
Essentially I would be be calling reflavoured demons, wsho would very often try to eat me.

Hold that thought. I need to mull over planar ally a bit.

EDIT: I think you're referring to Planar Binding. Planar Ally is divine only.

Greenish
2010-06-06, 08:13 PM
Pass. It might just be a mental disconnect, since most of the forums I frequent on are black background/white text.I can do the white text, but you'll have to supply the black background yourself.

…Bob.

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:13 PM
Hold that thought. I need to mull over planar ally a bit.

I guessed the spell was banned equally for mechanical reasons but for the purpose of this thread, let's assume it is the embodiment of a balanced spell.


I can do the white text, but you'll have to supply the black background yourself.

…Bob.



Surely you mean blue.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 08:13 PM
Eh. I've strongly considered banning arcane magic outright, but I thought the Cthulhu thing was funnier.

This is the problem right here. If you're really making it so all mages go insane just because it's funny to watch your players suffer, then I really wouldn't want to play with you as a DM.


True enough, but there's a sizable gulf between "hot enough to instantly liquify steel" and "hot enough to reduce everything within its radius to vapor."

Actually, there really isn't; if it can actually melt your armor, it would be a blast far more powerful than a fireball because, realistically, it would have melted the human wearing it first.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:18 PM
This is the problem right here. If you're really making it so all mages go insane just because it's funny to watch your players suffer, then I really wouldn't want to play with you as a DM.

What would you call someone who's only sadist towards masochists? That is, one who derives pleasure from other people deriving pleasure from their own suffering? That'd be a more accurate description of my DMing habits.

PersonMan
2010-06-06, 08:21 PM
Actually, there really isn't; if it can actually melt your armor, it would be a blast far more powerful than a fireball because, realistically, it would have melted the human wearing it first.

Don't humans burn, not melt?


Surely you mean blue.

I'm blue, da ba dee da ba die...

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:25 PM
EDIT: I think you're referring to Planar Binding. Planar Ally is divine only.

Right you are, assuming no arcane disciple.

In any case planar binding is similar. 10 minute casting time, a danger of being attack by summoned demon figment of my insane mind, and requirement to barter, just forget I mentioned the gold.


Don't humans burn, not melt?

If the fire is hot enough, they melt.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:26 PM
On the refluffed planar binding... I would say it's a combination of setting up a trap (mechanically, hold monster + sanctuary), followed by intentionally triggering a Rift. The wizard would be given no control over what creature was summoned (other than the simple nature of which planar binding spell he cast), and he would have to manually convince the creature to do his bidding, as opposed to (built in) magical compulsion. (A seperate casting of dominate monster would be acceptable however, though it might trigger another, uncontrolled Rift.)

You could probably also design a new spell that was equivalent to a restraining bolt so that the summoned Riftspawn was not required to remain within the circle at all times but would still be unable to attack you while wearing it.

(Ninja'd, so I moved this to a seperate post.)

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 08:28 PM
What would you call someone who's only sadist towards masochists? That is, one who derives pleasure from other people deriving pleasure from their own suffering? That'd be a more accurate description of my DMing habits.

I would say that if your DMing habits only stem from making your players suffer, you aren't in a very good position to give advice for a normal DM with non masochistic players anyway.

EDIT: That, and that there are far better systems for screwing over your players than D&D, such as, well, the actual Call of Cthluhu game.

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:29 PM
On the refluffed planar binding... I would say it's a combination of setting up a trap, followed by intentionally triggering a Rift. The wizard would be given no control over what creature was summoned (other than the simple nature of which planar binding spell he cast), and he would have to manually convince the creature to do his bidding, as opposed to (built in) magical compulsion. (A seperate casting of dominate monster would be acceptable however, though it might trigger another, uncontrolled Rift.)

You could probably also design a new spell that was equivalent to a restraining bolt so that the summoned Riftspawn was not required to remain within the circle at all times but would still be unable to attack you while wearing it.

(Ninja'd, so I moved this to a seperate post.)

That is pretty much what I was aiming for, its just you said arcane magic cannot influence planes, so I came up with my mind for the source of the creature instead.

drengnikrafe
2010-06-06, 08:31 PM
I just realized I do ban things. Whenever my PCs are having an IRL arguement, I make them settle it before we game. That way, the adventure goes on without bickering for hours (which has happened. Worst session ever).

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:32 PM
That is pretty much what I was aiming for, its just you said arcane magic cannot influence planes, so I came up with my mind for the source of the creature instead.

Well, the Riftspawn are deeply linked with insanity, but really they're more Far Realms-type critters. Which, while technically from another plane, aren't mechanically treated as such. (You can't plane shift to a Riftspawn plane, and spells that effect extraplanar creatures don't affect them.)


I would say that if your DMing habits only stem from making your players suffer, you aren't in a very good position to give advice for a normal DM with non masochistic players anyway.

Wait... was I actually giving advice at any point here? I forget. :smallconfused:


EDIT: That, and that there are far better systems for screwing over your players than D&D, such as, well, the actual Call of Cthluhu game.

Don't wanna spend the money, and I'm already familiar with DnD's mechanics.

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:34 PM
Well, the Riftspawn are deeply linked with insanity, but really they're more Far Realms-type critters. Which, while technically from another plane, aren't mechanically treated as such. (You can't plane shift to a Riftspawn plane, and spells that effect extraplanar creatures don't affect them.)

Well gthen the only real mechanical change is that using planar binding to summon something that does not want to kill you, whilst perfectly possible RAW, would be next to impossible in your game, but that takes the fun out of the spell anyway. Besides, if its good the party is more likely to care if I cause its death.

I still like the idea of a character who summons forth these creatures form his mind however. Or at least thinks he does.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:36 PM
Well gthen the only real mechanical change is that using planar binding to summon something that does not want to kill you, whilst perfectly possible RAW, would be next to impossible in your game, but that takes the fun out of the spell anyway. Besides, if its good the party is more likely to care if I cause its death.

*evil grin*

Everything Is Trying To Kill You. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingTryingToKillYou)


I still like the idea of a character who summons forth these creatures form his mind however. Or at least thinks he does.

Combined with your constant hallucinations, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that this creature you've summoned is nothing more that a product of your own madness.

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:44 PM
*evil grin*

Everything Is Trying To Kill You. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingTryingToKillYou)

Been a long time since I've been in Australia.


Combined with your constant hallucinations, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that this creature you've summoned is nothing more that a product of your own madness.

Having saved the princess from a tribe of orcs.

Me, muttering to myself: I need to pretect her. Much always be under watch. Cannot blink, she must always be watched. But I need to fight the orcs without her around. What do I do, what do I do.
Princess: Are you okay?
Me: Got it. We'll ask his help. *casts planar binding, summons many armed, no legged one eyed horror, negotiates princess protection in return for 10 peasants.
Princess, faintly: Help.
Me, patting rift beast: Don't worry princess, this is a magical snorkalpuff, the last of his kind. He will protect you whilest I slay the orcs. *leaves*
Princess, screaming: HELP! ORCS!! ANYONE!!!

Maerok
2010-06-06, 08:45 PM
Is Complete Champion broken like I think it is? I always hoped there'd be some shred of improvement within it for the noble Paladin.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 08:47 PM
Having saved the princess from a tribe of orcs.

Me, muttering to myself: I need to pretect her. Much always be under watch. Cannot blink, she must always be watched. But I need to fight the orcs without her around. What do I do, what do I do.
Princess: Are you okay?
Me: Got it. We'll ask his help. *casts planar binding, summons many armed, no legged one eyed horror, negotiates princess protection in return for 10 peasants.
Princess, faintly: Help.
Me, patting rift beast: Don't worry princess, this is a magical snorkalpuff, the last of his kind. He will protect you whilest I slay the orcs. *leaves*
Princess, screaming: HELP! ORCS!! ANYONE!!!

...I think I'd love to have you in one of my campaigns.
:smallbiggrin:

Boci
2010-06-06, 08:48 PM
Is Complete Champion broken like I think it is? I always hoped there'd be some shred of improvement within it for the noble Paladin.

There is. Battle blessing. All standard action spells become swift actions. Combine with sword of the arcane order for some low level arcane spells. But there is a lot of flavour text, and some pretty broken devotion feats fueled by turn undead attempts. For some builds, like a swift hunter, they are a much needed bonus. For others, a cherry on an already too thick icing.


...I think I'd love to have you in one of my campaigns.
:smallbiggrin:

For some characters going insane fits their concept easily, like the summoner I just thought of. The character I imagined using the corpse puppets doesn't mesh with insanity that well, so depedning on how quickly and in what way I go insane I either wouldn't play him, or ask in advance if when he starts going insane I could retrain his character levels to a cleric or something else. (Essentially him going "**** that, no power is worth my sanity")

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 09:09 PM
For some characters going insane fits their concept easily, like the summoner I just thought of. The character I imagined using the corpse puppets doesn't mesh with insanity that well, so depedning on how quickly and in what way I go insane I either wouldn't play him, or ask in advance if when he starts going insane I could retrain his character levels to a cleric or something else. (Essentially him going "**** that, no power is worth my sanity")

Depending on what level he decided to turn from his path, the gods might grant him mercy and turn him into a cleric if he seeks atonement.

Maerok
2010-06-06, 09:38 PM
There is. Battle blessing. All standard action spells become swift actions. Combine with sword of the arcane order for some low level arcane spells. But there is a lot of flavour text, and some pretty broken devotion feats fueled by turn undead attempts. For some builds, like a swift hunter, they are a much needed bonus. For others, a cherry on an already too thick icing.

I tried a Paladin/Death Delver with a heaping of Devotions for some semblance of survivability. The game didn't last.

lsfreak
2010-06-06, 09:45 PM
Is Complete Champion broken like I think it is? I always hoped there'd be some shred of improvement within it for the noble Paladin.

Nope, it's not broken, though in extremely unoptimized games certain things can come across as rather overpowering (most notably pounce and a few of the devotion feats). It's actually one of my favorite books without stepping into new-mechanics territories.

For paladins and pseudo-paladins, you've got gems like Travel Devotion, Law Devotion, Battle Blessing, and Awesome Smite. Knowledge Devotion and Death Devotion are great as well, for certain builds, and for cleric-paladins you've also got Holy Warrior and Ordained Champion. Imbue Healing and Healing Devotion are very good for part-time healers. Paragnostic Apostle is great for arcane spellcasters. Pounce makes barbarian an excellent one-level dip for any melee class (especially with Whirling Frenzy). The fighter and monk ACF's are particularly good as well.

All in all, the book ranks with CMage, CScoundrel, and PHB2 as books that are well-written, plenty of crunch and plenty of fluff, with stuff that is useful for many, many different characters. The only ones I'd say are probably better don't use Core mechanics.

Maerok
2010-06-06, 09:47 PM
Where is Battle Blessing mentioned? It doesn't seem to appear under feats or ACFs. And does it apply to Sorcadins?

lsfreak
2010-06-06, 09:50 PM
Where is Battle Blessing mentioned? It doesn't seem to appear under feats or ACFs. And does it apply to Sorcadins?

It's a feat. Look harder! :smalltongue: (Page 55)
EDIT: It would apply to a sorcadin's paladin spells, but I'm not aware of any sorcadin build that actually gets paladin spells.

Maerok
2010-06-06, 10:02 PM
I never put ranks in Spot. Go figure... :smallbiggrin:

Tinydwarfman
2010-06-06, 10:50 PM
So, Psycho, could you give me a little transcript of how a wizard in your game is actually impeded or otherwise effected by his/her insanity? Because right now it sounds like they just have 1 in 100 chance of getting a little demon attacking them after a spell.

Drakevarg
2010-06-06, 11:17 PM
So, Psycho, could you give me a little transcript of how a wizard in your game is actually impeded or otherwise effected by his/her insanity? Because right now it sounds like they just have 1 in 100 chance of getting a little demon attacking them after a spell.


Any time a spell is cast, there is a (Spell Level)% chance of triggering a Rift.
If a Rift isn't triggered, that number is added to the Rift Score.
The next time a spell is cast, the chance of a Rift opening is (Spell Level + Rift Score)%. Again, if no Rift opens, it accumulates.
These rifts are proportionate in size to the power of the spell cast. The DM selects a Riftspawn from the appropriate list. When a Rift opens, the caster' Rift Score returns to zero.
The Riftspawn rolled appears nearby (exact location DM's disgression) at the same time that the spell is cast.
Each day, the caster's Rift Score is decreased by their Caster Level.

Depending on how powerful the spell is, this could be anything from a Choker to an 11th Level Illithid Wizard.

Maerok
2010-06-07, 01:42 AM
Do you have slaadi on the list? They seem appropriate. But then again, that's too predictable for beings of Chaos...

Drakevarg
2010-06-07, 01:46 AM
Do you have slaadi on the list? They seem appropriate. But then again, that's too predictable for beings of Chaos...

Amongst many other things. Lesse, off the top of my head I have:

Skum, Triton, Aboleths, Gauths, Beholders, Janni, Djinni, Efreeti, Azer, Blue Slaadi, Green Slaadi (actually name-swapped Grey Slaadi), Grey Slaadi (actually name-swapped Death Slaadi), Illithid and Salamanders as the Riftspawn capable of taking class levels.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-07, 02:08 AM
Is Complete Champion broken like I think it is? I always hoped there'd be some shred of improvement within it for the noble Paladin.
Well, Clerics get better use out of it than anyone else, which is sort of ridiculous seeing as Clerics are already among the strongest in the game. However, there are a number of features which neglected classes (like the Paladin) can get a ton of use out of, which make it worth while. It's like, "Yeah, it gives even more power to the Cleric, who doesn't need it, but then again, he's got more than enough power already, that's not a great reason to ban the book - and just look what the Paladin and the Scout and the Barbarian can do with it."

It's a solid book. You get some complaints about it sometimes (probably more so than any Complete besides Psionics), but ultimately it follows the usual trend of splatbooks - it gives more power to casters (ugh), but they didn't really need it and ultimately the extra power it gives to melee classes can only help matters. In particular, the Lion Spirit Totem ACF for Barbarians allows most melee characters to avoid the absurdity that is the way Full-Attacks work (that is, moving more than 5 ft. utterly gimps your damage output for the round), which is worth it in itself.

Maerok
2010-06-07, 02:22 AM
The Devotion feats are a bit much as feats. They're practically class features, like the Trickery Devotion feat. That's a feat without prereqs that lets you create a walking duplicate...

It'd be cool to have them as Paladin ACFs. Give up the lame SLAs for a free Devotion feat every four (or less even) levels. And maybe make Smite Evil and X times per encounter ability instead.

I'd play less evil-ish spellcasters if I could just play a BA paladin...

PId6
2010-06-07, 02:38 AM
The Devotion feats are a bit much as feats. They're practically class features, like the Trickery Devotion feat. That's a feat without prereqs that lets you create a walking duplicate...
I'd argue that they're how feats should be. Feats shouldn't act like Weapon Focus or Skill Focus, which give minor static bonuses that become insignificant in a few levels. Feats should scale with level and be useful at all levels. I'm disappointed that Turn Undead is the only way to fuel them (Animal Devotion should be usable via Wild Shape, for example), but beyond that, I think all or at least most feats should be like them.


It'd be cool to have them as Paladin ACFs. Give up the lame SLAs for a free Devotion feat every four (or less even) levels. And maybe make Smite Evil and X times per encounter ability instead.
That's a pretty good fix for paladin though. Purely Cha-based spellcasting, encounter-based Smite Evil, and bonus Devotion feats in place of Cure Disease would go a long way to fixing the class.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-06-07, 02:42 AM
Ban psionics and TOB is all i got from the first page. Really? :smallfurious:

real DMs fix things. Very few things need outright ban outside of 9th level spells. If you're too lazy to read, just disallow everything in my Dirty Handbook Fixes at BG.

Choco
2010-06-07, 08:31 AM
Psionics is more balanced than Arcane magic, so if you are gonna ban anything ban arcane magic :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, the best way to handle this is on a case by case basis. Tell the players flat out that EVERYTHING they chose for their characters has to be run by you first, a few days in advance of the session they get/can use it (to give you time to look it over and possibly ask on the forums for help finding out if they are trying to pull some cheese, for instance. Also to give the players time to choose something else if you ban what they wanted). Then once you disallow something the first time, add it to an ever growing ban list.

If something DOES sneak past you and a PC pulls some epic cheese, kill that character off horribly (and permanently) and then ban whatever the player did :smallamused:.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-07, 09:59 AM
I'd argue that they're how feats should be. Feats shouldn't act like Weapon Focus or Skill Focus, which give minor static bonuses that become insignificant in a few levels. Feats should scale with level and be useful at all levels. I'm disappointed that Turn Undead is the only way to fuel them (Animal Devotion should be usable via Wild Shape, for example), but beyond that, I think all or at least most feats should be like them.


That's a pretty good fix for paladin though. Purely Cha-based spellcasting, encounter-based Smite Evil, and bonus Devotion feats in place of Cure Disease would go a long way to fixing the class.
This here is a +1/+1 Quote of Truth. Agreed on both, and I'd love to see that Paladin written up.

Saph
2010-06-07, 10:06 AM
This here is a +1/+1 Quote of Truth. Agreed on both, and I'd love to see that Paladin written up.

Sounds pretty similar to the Pathfinder Pally . . . Cha-based spellcasting, Smite Evil lasts all encounter, and they get some extra benefits on top of that.

Grifthin
2010-06-07, 10:25 AM
Yes, it is. Stuff doesn't melt from an instant, split second exposure to heat, because no object is that good at conducting heat.

As for making the PC go so crazy he can't even tell what he's doing: Are you serious? Why do you even let characters play casters if you are going to punish them so heavily they might as well be NPCs, since they have no control over their own actions?

It's like playing a psyker in Warhammer 40K setting - sure you can crack a planet in half as collateral damage at higher levels, but then a daemon is likely to rip your soul out and chew on it for eternity too. Great power = Great cost. Everytime you roll a 9 when you manifest psychic phenomena manifest too. It's fun as hell (Often your russian roulette nails your party too, but since your too useful....)

lsfreak
2010-06-07, 01:58 PM
The Devotion feats are a bit much as feats. They're practically class features, like the Trickery Devotion feat. That's a feat without prereqs that lets you create a walking duplicate...

As said, feats have to scale. Name me the Core-only feats that actually scale with level. We've got Power Attack, TWF, Improved Trip... uh... Rapid Shot... and then the metamagic feats. You'll note that besides as pre-reqs, those are about the only Core feats ever actually recommended. Most feats suck, except the caster ones. Melee needs nice things - so they get Law Devotion, Travel Devotion, Knowledge Devotion. Things that scale, things that are actually worth the feat slot.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-07, 04:31 PM
As said, feats have to scale. Name me the Core-only feats that actually scale with level. We've got Power Attack, TWF, Improved Trip... uh... Rapid Shot... and then the metamagic feats. You'll note that besides as pre-reqs, those are about the only Core feats ever actually recommended. Most feats suck, except the caster ones. Melee needs nice things - so they get Law Devotion, Travel Devotion, Knowledge Devotion. Things that scale, things that are actually worth the feat slot.Not TWF.

However, this is muchly agreed. Non-magic feats need to scale, far more badly than magic feats do (since they're based on an already-scaling mechanic), but they don't; certainly not anywhere near Core.

Also, don't forget Leadership.

PId6
2010-06-07, 04:35 PM
Not TWF.
It does as long as you're willing to pay more feats for it to do so. :smallsigh:


Also, don't forget Leadership.
Always forget leadership.

lsfreak
2010-06-07, 04:44 PM
It does as long as you're willing to pay more feats for it to do so. :smallsigh:
Even if you're not, you get higher sneak attack dice. It scales as much as Rapid Shot or Improved Trip do, which is to say poorly on their own (you really need other feats to support them - Knowledge Devotion, Stand Still, Craven, etc.), but still better than other Core feats.

Maerok
2010-06-07, 09:22 PM
I'd argue that they're how feats should be. Feats shouldn't act like Weapon Focus or Skill Focus, which give minor static bonuses that become insignificant in a few levels. Feats should scale with level and be useful at all levels. I'm disappointed that Turn Undead is the only way to fuel them (Animal Devotion should be usable via Wild Shape, for example), but beyond that, I think all or at least most feats should be like them.

Yeah, you've got that right. I've been wrongfully conditioned by Core feats.

Gametime
2010-06-07, 09:56 PM
I'd argue that they're how feats should be. Feats shouldn't act like Weapon Focus or Skill Focus, which give minor static bonuses that become insignificant in a few levels. Feats should scale with level and be useful at all levels. I'm disappointed that Turn Undead is the only way to fuel them (Animal Devotion should be usable via Wild Shape, for example), but beyond that, I think all or at least most feats should be like them.




I'd rather have all feats be like Weapon Focus than all feats like Travel Devotion, frankly. Not because I like how weak feat-dependent noncasters are compared to spell-dependent casters, but because feats like Travel Devotion and Shock Trooper radically change a character's power in ways that can trivialize level-appropriate challenges. I much prefer feats to be small bonuses than style-changers.

Feat-dependent classes are only weak in comparison to spellcasters. They're still more than capable of dealing with actual monsters, even when using weak feats like Weapon Focus.

lsfreak
2010-06-07, 10:06 PM
I'd rather have all feats be like Weapon Focus than all feats like Travel Devotion, frankly. Not because I like how weak feat-dependent noncasters are compared to spell-dependent casters, but because feats like Travel Devotion and Shock Trooper radically change a character's power in ways that can trivialize level-appropriate challenges. I much prefer feats to be small bonuses than style-changers.

Feat-dependent classes are only weak in comparison to spellcasters. They're still more than capable of dealing with actual monsters, even when using weak feats like Weapon Focus.

Keep in mind, though, that 'level-appropriate challenges' was etermined by people who had no idea how the system worked. Even if you throw out some of those feats, you're still going to have the same problems. Sneak attack rogues tear through level-appropriate mobs, for example, as can even non-Shock Trooper chargers (many, many monsters have pitifully low AC).

Gametime
2010-06-07, 10:13 PM
Keep in mind, though, that 'level-appropriate challenges' was etermined by people who had no idea how the system worked. Even if you throw out some of those feats, you're still going to have the same problems. Sneak attack rogues tear through level-appropriate mobs, for example, as can even non-Shock Trooper chargers (many, many monsters have pitifully low AC).

Rogues can do lots of damage to enemies, but the fact that sneak attack is often inapplicable and requires specific conditions to work means that they rarely trivialize encounters, in my experience.

A non-Shock Trooper charger might destroy some monsters, but they're much less likely to. They'd probably have to either be mounted or using another feat that is, by this estimation, more powerful than it should be. In addition, even a slightly lower chance of hitting can lead to significant differences in kill tallies over the course of several fights; it's Shock Trooper's ability to completely negate any miss chance incurred by Power Attack that irks me so.

Doug Lampert
2010-06-08, 12:31 AM
*shrug* Fantasy has no rules. In all of the settings of my own creation, the undead draw their power from the local Grim Reaper equivalent. Why he allows this is unknown, mainly because I tend to give my dieties somewhat Lovecraftian mindsets. Maybe he just thinks it's funny.



What makes you think I don't have my PCs bleed? As for the second one, maybe I should come up with a penalty mechanic based on how much HP you have left...

Don't. There is virtually no evidence for wounds having ANY reduction in combat effectiveness till you reach the point that the wounded man falls down and stops fighting.

There's actually quite a bit of evidence AGAINST this belief in the form of people continuing to fight with serious or even mortal wounds and doing quite well.

When someone is killed by a knife the STANDARD is to look for defensive wounds on possible assailants, because the ASSUMPTION, based on years of police experience and data, is that a 120lb woman who's just trying to run away till after the first 5-6 stab wounds will STILL turn arround and seriously hurt her 250lb male assailant after the adrenaline finally kicks in.

Adrenaline is POWERFUL stuff. And everyone in combat tends to by hyped on adrenaline.

The USArmy once upgraded the standard issue sidearm from .38 to .45 SPECIFICALLY because shooting someone in the chest doesn't seriously slow them down unless it drops them. Broadly, if you don't drop due to shock, and no tendons are cut or major bones broken or nerves destroyed you can probably keep going on adrenline even if you're NOT a superhero type. And of the wounds that will slow you down without dropping you, major broken bones are the ONLY ONE that can heal naturally with any amount of time. D&D HP damage all heals within a week or so, it doesn't represent anything that serious till you bleed out.

I've seen debates on this where one side had lots of references to FBI data and studies and military data and studies, and the other side had "but of course people don't fight as well wounded..." I don't plan to look up those references, but you can probably get them off google if you really try, just look for evidence of actual studies that show ANY drop-off short of disabilities, I can't guarantee what you'll find, but about 10 years ago there weren't any and attempts to find them just collaborated that the evidence was all on the other side.

lsfreak
2010-06-08, 01:47 AM
-snip-

I'd be in agreement, though I'd add that long, drawn-out combat - such as two people dueling for 10+ rounds - should start having an effect. Sudden action tends to be fueled by adrenaline, but when you're purposefully looking for a fight (most adventurers) but the combat drags on and on, you'll likely to wear down. It's got something to do with how much you've been hurt, but a lot of it is also simply getting physically worn out by the act of fighting.

Maerok
2010-06-08, 02:16 AM
But if your options are continue to fight or die, then you've got to try and keep surviving.

I'm reminded of the final battle in MGS4 (ZOMG SPOILERS).

Dairun Cates
2010-06-08, 02:23 AM
Been said, but I don't ban ANYTHING. I watch my players make their characters, I guide them through it, I give them advice on what to take, and if they try to outshine the entire party with some ludicrous and ridiculous build involving pulling something from 3 different sourcebooks, I slap them on the head and say no.

They usually listen when I say no and tone it down. And the ones that don't, learn pretty fast. I don't outright go for killing them, but there's ways a GM can persuade you away from certain actions without violence.

Of course, I also pretty much know who to check. The people that cause these kinds of problems are pretty consistent about it.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-08, 09:56 AM
involving pulling something from 3 different sourcebooks
I'm totally with you except for this. There's nothing inherent about a build drawing from 3, or 30, sources, that causes problems. A lot more problematic features can be found in one book (the Player's Handbook) than any number of supplements combined. Seriously. Planar Shepherd, Celerity, and Incantatrix are bad, but are they as bad as Gate, Time Stop, Shapechange? I don't think so.

The runner-up for problem-causing, and the only book I wouldn't include in the "any number of other books" (but it's not a supplement, so my statement stands), is the Monster Manual.

EDIT: My statement is hyperbole, though. Planar Shepherd can easily give any of those 9th level spells a run for their money, and Tainted Scholar, Cancer Mage, and the Sarrukh all are far, far worse. PHB still has by far the highest density of broken crap.

Boci
2010-06-08, 10:34 AM
When someone is killed by a knife the STANDARD is to look for defensive wounds on possible assailants, because the ASSUMPTION, based on years of police experience and data, is that a 120lb woman who's just trying to run away till after the first 5-6 stab wounds will STILL turn arround and seriously hurt her 250lb male assailant after the adrenaline finally kicks in.

Defensive wounds doesn't mean much. Scratches are defensive wounds.


The USArmy once upgraded the standard issue sidearm from .38 to .45 SPECIFICALLY because shooting someone in the chest doesn't seriously slow them down unless it drops them. Broadly, if you don't drop due to shock, and no tendons are cut or major bones broken or nerves destroyed you can probably keep going on adrenline even if you're NOT a superhero type. And of the wounds that will slow you down without dropping you, major broken bones are the ONLY ONE that can heal naturally with any amount of time.

Yes, I believe someone mortaly wounded but armed with a gun can still fight very well until the moment they go down. Mortally wounded but armed with a sword/baseball bat? Not so much.


I don't plan to look up those references

You dop not have to, I believe the references. Them being that a badly wounded person can still
a. Casue trivial injuries that are only useful in a court case
b. pull a trigger.

I still think being reduced to 5 hp when your maximum is 60 should impose a penalty on attacks.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-08, 10:49 AM
I still think being reduced to 5 hp when your maximum is 60 should impose a penalty on attacks.
Ignore reality for a moment, and consider what that would do to game balance. Yes, it would, in theory, allow melee to inflict status effects, but honestly, the way things currently stand, casters aren't going to be taking very much HP damage, and later in the game they'll just be killed out-right rather than wounded. The only ones you are hurting with such a rule is the melee characters who really cannot afford it.

Boci
2010-06-08, 10:58 AM
Ignore reality for a moment, and consider what that would do to game balance. Yes, it would, in theory, allow melee to inflict status effects, but honestly, the way things currently stand, casters aren't going to be taking very much HP damage, and later in the game they'll just be killed out-right rather than wounded. The only ones you are hurting with such a rule is the melee characters who really cannot afford it.

I'm not saying it should be the rules, but in a balanced game where casters and melee do not overshadow eachother it could be an interesting optional rule. "Why doesn't my character bleed and why doesn't being reduced to 5 hitpoints make my full attack any weaker?" is just my standard rebuttal to anyone disfavouring something "Because it's not realistic".

taltamir
2010-06-08, 11:03 AM
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

I really think the "book of vile darkness" should be renamed as "book of cliche villainy" while the "book of erotic fantasy" be renamed as "book of vile darkness"... or maybe just "book of vileness"...

There is the book of "blue magic" aka nymphology which has decent sexual content that isn't vile as the book of erotic fantasy.

As for ban lists... large portions of core TBH. 90% of the most broken stuff is in core.

Gametime
2010-06-08, 11:09 AM
I really think the "book of vile darkness" should be renamed as "book of cliche villainy" while the "book of erotic fantasy" be renamed as "book of vile darkness"... or maybe just "book of vileness"...

There is the book of "blue magic" aka nymphology which has decent sexual content that isn't vile as the book of erotic fantasy.



Nymphology is packed to the brim with juvenile sexual humor and proposed uses for spells that varies from "intensely creepy" to "probably illegal in any magic-literate society." The focus on non-consensual uses for these spells is disturbing, to say the least, but Nymphology's big strength compared to the BoEF is that it very clearly isn't taking itself seriously.

The Book of Erotic Fantasy, meanwhile, takes itself way too seriously. If it is intended humorously - and my sanity demands that I assume the table claiming that pixies and titans can interbreed is a cruel joke - then it's the stealth parody equivalent of a polar bear in a snowstorm.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-08, 11:33 AM
I've only skimmed the BoEF, but I dunno, I think trying to take things a little seriously is worthwhile. The intro covers it pretty well: "This is a strange topic for a book, and 90% of games should probably never use it, but if we're going to do this, we're going to at least try to do it right".

Though I agree that it fails utterly on that at points. The tables, for one. The "art" for another... but parts of it are actually fairly well thought out and saves a DM having to put too much thought into things they'd rather not.