If I'm going to ban this, I should also ban...(New Metamagic Thing)

[Angry Bob]

I'm working on what not to allow in a game where things should be considered allowed until I say otherwise. So far, my list is short, and due only to personal experience or volume of animosity towards it elsewhere. On the other hand, I don't want to change so much that my players will have to relearn the game. Here goes:

Erudites cannot choose spell-to-power and get no psycrystal at level 1. Psy Artificers can't consider themselves to have access to spell lists due to this restriction.

Shivering touch offers a fortitude save and lasts 1 round/3 caster levels. Lesser shivering touch is unchanged.

Add the following prerequisite to Greenbound Summoning: Must be able to cast Summon Nature's Ally V.

Canceled, see changed version below.
You can only apply Divine Metamagic to feats with a slot adjustment of +3 or lower. Spells so adjusted must be prepared this way at the beginning of the day.

EDIT: NO DMM PERSIST. NIGHTSTICKS DON'T STACK ANYWAY.

NO METAMAGIC ****ERY. This includes, but is not limited to, divine metamagic, metamagic school focus, arcane thesis, recaster, incantatrix, metamagic spell trigger/completion, sudden metamagic, wtf ever. The only way to use metamagic is to cast it through a slot adjusted as per printed on the feat.

The only exception: Abilities that automatically apply metamagic to spells, such as Battle Blessing, the Radiant Servant's empowered healing, the Wu Jen's spell secrets, or the Abjurant Champion's quickened abjurations. Versatile Spellcaster is fine with the understanding that you can't use your virtual spell slots gained with it to power it again, in case there was any confusion.

No circumventing XP or material costs for spells. This includes by turning them into spell-likes or supernatural abilities.

Artificers(or item creators in general) can't use the creation price reducers presented from the DMG.

Canceled, preserved for context:
Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

EDIT: reworded version of above:
Characters with expensive class features should take efforts to protect them. NPCs will eventually be canny enough to target them. Once they do, how much effort you've put into protecting them will determine whether or not they succeed.

Same:
Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

EDIT: Reworded version of above: Clerics and Druids are expected to follow a code of conduct. This is more of a reminder than a houserule for clerics, since it already says they have to in the PHB, but the druid's is new. It is like to a paladin's code, but more forgiving and less immediately retributive, with different specifics, depending on your god or druidic order. The paladin's code is similarly altered, and is in fact less strict than those above, owing to their diminished connection to their god compared to that of a cleric.

tl;dr: See title. If I'm going to make the above changes, what should also be considered for alteration?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

The rest are more than fine, but these are terrible. The first is "don't play these classes, or the DM will have it out for you." The second is unnecessary roleplay restriction (probably with a penalty for failing to follow the code), which is never fun.

If you don't want those classes running around, do your players the favor of outright banning them, 'cause the above two rulings are basically anti-fun.

Just one man's opinion. The rest, as I said, are reasonable and solid choices.

[JaronK]

Randomly stealing people's stuff isn't fun for players, so I'd REALLY avoid that. Instead, just say "Don't play those classes." You can tell your players to stick to T3 and below, and all the same character concepts work (but not all are as powerful, obviously).

JaronK

[Quietus]

The easiest solution is, as always, to simply say "If you use it, I'll consider it available to use as well." This means they'll only use Shivering Touch and the like if they're willing to have it turned on them.

[MammonAzrael]

I agree with the others regarding the last two options. As a player I would see them as the DM saying "I don't want you to play these, but I don't have the guts to say no. So I'll just make your life miserable and make you regret playing with me if you choose to play any of these classes."

As for Greenbound Summoning, just make it how it was originally intended (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/128424-what-have-i-missed-about-greenbound-summoning-4.html), a +2 metamagic feat.

Don't forget to ban Pazuzu and Candles of Invocation.

[Angry Bob]

Actually, the "golden rule" approach might be a problem. We have a player for whom the game isn't fun if he isn't the guy that can kick more ass than the rest of the party put together. The challenge isn't so much about taming the party as a whole, but rather that anything that can challenge him is going to annihilate the rest of the party.

He's the only one that practically optimizes other than me, and I don't like casters. The rest of the party is either casual enough that they don't bother combing through sourcebooks or CharOp boards for builds, or tactically brilliant enough that they don't need more than a little optimization anyway.

[arguskos]

The easiest solution is, as always, to simply say "If you use it, I'll consider it available to use as well." This means they'll only use Shivering Touch and the like if they're willing to have it turned on them.
I have a decently large ban list, much of which is culled from the Test of Spite guys, but I also do the above. I tell people that I prefer op-levels to be around Tier 3, but if they really want to open up a can of whoopass, they're welcome to. Just know I can do it too, and probably better than you can.

This has the benefit of encouraging people to be mechanically competent, but to not go overboard with it, since that just causes an arms race they're going to lose.

Of course, I also ask people to be reasonable and to just ASK ME about anything and everything they want to take as characters, and I say yes or no to things as it fits for the situation. Works well, actually. :smallcool:

[Coidzor]

You can only apply Divine Metamagic to feats with a slot adjustment of +3 or lower. Spells so adjusted must be prepared this way at the beginning of the day.

Overkill. The first one should be enough, even if multiple nightsticks are still on the table. You might forbid multiple nightsticks, but really, with only +1-+3 metamagics available, nightsticks are only a wealth sink rather than a significant power booster.


Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

Well, on the one hand you have a point, somewhat, but on the other, you're admitting you're one of those DMs with a fetish for making Paladins fall by hook or by crook due to having made such a rule. :/


tl;dr: See title. If I'm going to make the above changes, what should also be considered for alteration?

Well, you shouldn't do some of them, for one.

[VirOath]

As said before, but I'll just say it again. Having the Wizard lose his stuff to be unable to cast spells is bad, as it is denying his class features as directly as forcing players to play Rogues in an Undead Only campaign.

Doing that to Artificers?! That is a class devoted to pouring investment into items and toys. To flat out rob the character of his items is to rob him of his advancement. You might as well turn to the fighter and say "You lose the last three feats you've gained, no way to get them back, and 3000 EXP. No, I don't care that you lost a level because of that."

If you don't want those classes in your campaign then just ban them instead of punishing the players for picking them.

Not caring for some of the other things on the list, most notably the separation of Psy And Magic. If you are going to block psionics from magic and magic from psionics, then go all the way with a full Magic And Psionics Are Completely Different. That means no SR against Psionics, that Psionics works in an Anti-Magic field, and the anti Psionic powers and abilities do nothing against magic as well.

Choosing to make a more utility item than combat item and picking to make it an inferior product should allow it to get a price reduction. Better to say that all item creation has to be approved by you than flat out remove a character's option if you are going to allow an Item Creator Character to be viable.

And the Code Of Conduct for Clerics and Druids is just bad. Not saying that if they act out far to the extreme against whatever source they have their spells from that they shouldn't face the consequences of it, but a Strict Code Of Conduct is more just making choices for the player, controlling their actions and denying them their free will. A Cleric of Pelor shouldn't face punishment for not facing a horde of undead, and right now that's what I'm seeing this line as an excuse for.

[Volos]

In my experience, banning or putting restrictions on anything within Core is never called for. If a DM has to do this, he/she is either unfamiliar with the rules or unwilling to give his players any wiggle room or leeway in his/her game. I back you up on the other bans/restrictions, but honestly if you're going to restrict or ban things outside of core, why not just play only core? There are certain things within Core that players can take advantage of, but then the DM can just as easily toss the same cheese back at his players. It seems like you have problems with Tier 1 abuse, so perhaps you should just outright disallow it's use rather than restrict it. A player would have more fun running an unhindered Bard then a restricted Wizard.

[MammonAzrael]

Actually, the "golden rule" approach might be a problem. We have a player for whom the game isn't fun if he isn't the guy that can kick more ass than the rest of the party put together. The challenge isn't so much about taming the party as a whole, but rather that anything that can challenge him is going to annihilate the rest of the party.

He's the only one that practically optimizes other than me, and I don't like casters. The rest of the party is either casual enough that they don't bother combing through sourcebooks or CharOp boards for builds, or tactically brilliant enough that they don't need more than a little optimization anyway.

Then it sounds like you don't need to ban anything or implement any of these rules. You don't have a group that wants a high-powered game, you have a problem player. Talk to him, out of game. If he isn't willing to play and an optimization level consistent with the rest of the party, then he needs to find a different game. He needs to respect you, and all the other players, and realize the game isn't about only him having fun. If he can't enjoy himself without either being extremely powerful, or just much more powerful than the rest of the group (two very different issues), then either way he probably needs a new group. This is an out of game problem, which necessitates an out of game solution.

[Goober4473]

Actually, the "golden rule" approach might be a problem. We have a player for whom the game isn't fun if he isn't the guy that can kick more ass than the rest of the party put together. The challenge isn't so much about taming the party as a whole, but rather that anything that can challenge him is going to annihilate the rest of the party.

He's the only one that practically optimizes other than me, and I don't like casters. The rest of the party is either casual enough that they don't bother combing through sourcebooks or CharOp boards for builds, or tactically brilliant enough that they don't need more than a little optimization anyway.

I had this problem for a long time. I started banning stuff, modifying everything, etc., just to keep this one player in line. But really, this is a problem with the player being abusive. Fixing some of the rules won't change that. Plus, there are just too many broken things in 3.5 D&D to ban/fix them all, and some of them are actually fine if not abused.

So instead I adopted the stragety of just telling the players not to make broken characters, and if they presented me with a character that I thought was too powerful, I'd just say, "make it again," or, "okay, but this is how that particular character will be nerfed." This is also dynamic, so if they managed to sneak something past me during character creation, the ban/nerf hammer will come down as soon as they start doing whatever broken thing it is they do.

This has served me well ever since, in every game system I've played. Players can't game the rules and figure out what broken things I still haven't banned. Instead, character creation is much more often a collaborative effort, where the players are always thinking (and asking) if something is appropriate.

[Edit]: See also the above poster.

[Jayabalard]

The rest are more than fine, but these are terrible. The first is "don't play these classes, or the DM will have it out for you." The second is unnecessary roleplay restriction (probably with a penalty for failing to follow the code), which is never fun.

If you don't want those classes running around, do your players the favor of outright banning them, 'cause the above two rulings are basically anti-fun.

Just one man's opinion. The rest, as I said, are reasonable and solid choices.I don't see a problem with either of them. Banning the classes is by far the more un-fun option by comparison

The former... well, that's just sound strategic thinking on the part of NPCs. It's not "don't play these classes, or the DM will have it out for you." ... it's "These classes have a clear, well known weakness in the form of items that they depend on; so don't expect everyone in the world to be universally stupid about it by ignoring that weakness". Having that sort of thinking in gameplay makes for a more believable world, which is a + for fun in my book.

The latter exists in D&D as it is, so it's not a new addition. It just kind of nebulous, especially in 3.5 compared to previous editions; making it more clearly defined seems to be quite obviously a good thing, even if that makes it more restricting.

[Angry Bob]

I'm not blanket-banning anything, and I despise core-only. What I'm trying to avoid is going into a game, having one character obliterate everything in his path, and then banning a bunch of stuff. I want to have the most troublesome things out of the way before the game begins.

In response to the criticisms of the codes of conduct, I feel like a lot of you have had bad experiences with DMs being ambiguous about what the code of conduct entails until it's too late and then springing it on you at the worst possible moment and making it unnecessarily hard to atone. This is not the intent of these changes. First, for the cleric, it simply makes sense that if you're going to serve a god, the god's going to stop giving you power if you stop serving them. Second, I hate crippling characters that haven't been asking for it for a very long time. No one's going to be stripped of their power for no reason at all, and certainly not for a single thing, unless they happened to, say, butcher an orphanage for the lulz as a cleric of Pelor.

For the toys, item creation is cheap enough that you can replace a lot of things, especially with the sort of campaign I'm running(High-risk, high loot, long downtime).

For the spellbooks, no one's going to have theft attempts on them until they're rich enough to put protections on them and make backups. Even then, until the character irritates someone powerful enough to succeed, the most these attempts will amount to is finding the occasional withered corpse of a would-be thief clutching your spellbook outside camp, the victim of a slightly slow enervation spelltrap or worse. Even if it does get stolen, the world-spanning Mage's Guild will be happy to furnish a spellbook with the appropriate "essentials" in it until your old one is recovered. At a small fee, of course.

The point is, I don't feel like needlessly crippling anyone. Case in point, my character in another campaign went three sessions with low health, and then died, because he'd taken CON drain from some random encounter. At average party level of 5. If the OP suggests otherwise, suggest better wording.

EDIT: In this setting, psionics and magic are semi-separate. The theory/schooling is different, but the energy itself is pretty much the same thing. So while psicraft won't identify a spell and spellcraft won't identify a power, psionics and magic can dispel each other and anti-X fields affect both of them.

[Frozen_Feet]

The rest are more than fine, but these are terrible. The first is "don't play these classes, or the DM will have it out for you." The second is unnecessary roleplay restriction (probably with a penalty for failing to follow the code), which is never fun.

Phooey. The first is "I'm not pulling any punches, so prepare to get hit", and the second is hardly as bad as many here make it out to be. More importantly, playing along a code has always been a part of those classes, so it's hardly unnecessary restriction. It's a GMs way of saying "fluff actually matters here. Don't pick these classes up if you're not up to the challenge, and don't think you can get away with picking them up for just the mechanics".

I guess I come from a very different school of roleplaying, but restrictions can be fun if you take them up as challenge. The rules hardly make any of the classes unplayable, and if the GM is upfront about them, the players can think of ways to get around them even if guano hits the fan.

Besides, it's not necessary for every aspect of the game to be fun or to the player's liking; aiming for that can even be bad for long-term satisfaction. What matters is that the net experience comes out positive.

[olthar]

No circumventing XP or material costs for spells. This includes by turning them into spell-likes or supernatural abilities.

Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

The only reason it is really possible to circumvent xp or material costs is because someone wasn't really thinking when they made a new rule anyway. So this fits with the spirit of the rules if not RAW.

The second makes sense as well. No character has the divine mandate to hold onto item x forever. That being said, you shouldn't specifically target any character (of course, as a corollary, intelligent monsters will recognize the tier 1 characters as being a bigger threat and would be more likely to target them. A wand of x is more dangerous than a sword).

I also think I may be the only person so far to agree with your third point. Divine casters are given their powers through an agreement with their gods. If a lawful good cleric of Pelor begins to act chaotic neutral then pelor will tell him to {Scrubbed} and stop allowing the cleric to channel pelor's power. It shouldn't be a one strike and you're out thing, but people who have alignment restrictions must act within the alignment. If you can make an argument for why torturing the person is actually a lawful good action, then I'm ok with it, but if you are torturing the guy because it is the easiest way to get information, then Pelor says no and you must deal with the consequences. I also think that a god would direct its priests in a way that would hint to them that they are on the wrong path. Maybe an unimportant spell won't work, or a dream will say "ship up," but whatever it is, gods don't just abandon their chosen priests.
Pally on the other hand should be able to lose their ability for one act if necessary. They are the paragons of their chosen deity and should be expected to act as such.

ninja'd opinion. Apparently I'm not the only one who plays with many of the op's concepts already in the game.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm working on what not to allow in a game where things should be considered allowed until I say otherwise. So far, my list is short, and due only to personal experience or volume of animosity towards it elsewhere. On the other hand, I don't want to change so much that my players will have to relearn the game. Here goes:

Erudites cannot choose spell-to-power and get no psycrystal at level 1. Psy Artificers can't consider themselves to have access to spell lists due to this restriction.

The psycrystal isn't a big deal, IMO. Stopping spell to power is legit, tho.


You can only apply Divine Metamagic to feats with a slot adjustment of +3 or lower. Spells so adjusted must be prepared this way at the beginning of the day.

Not bad. I would instead put a cap of some sort on the reduction. Say...you can only reduce a mm by 3, or reduce it to a minimum of 1. Otherwise, you can avoid the restriction entirely by RAW by applying other reducers first.


No circumventing XP or material costs for spells. This includes by turning them into spell-likes or supernatural abilities.

I would couple this with discarding all material components costing 5g or less. For sorcs at least. I get what you're after, and no free wishes is a solid goal.

On that note, I would add the restrictions that infinite combos can always be considered banned. I don't care how you did it, if it's an infinite loop, it doesn't work.


Artificers(or item creators in general) can't use the creation price reducers presented from the DMG.

Those are guidelines. Players should not be expecting unlimited access to them to begin with. The reducers are a bad idea and are best ignored.


Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

That's a bit silly unless applied to everyone. Sure, leave your spellbook carelessly laying about, and bad things might happen, but the same is true of that glowing sword.


Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

I honestly dislike codes of conduct altogether. If used, I suggest that they be more of an organizational code, and thus, if violated, a paladin may lose the support and/or trust of the church of his patron. The idea of a code of conduct for a cleric following an ideal is hard to swallow.

I suggest also banning: Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage. These two classes are unredeemable.

[Saph]

Yeah, I can't see any cause for outrage here. Everyone in the gameworld knows that Wizards depend upon spellbooks, and Clerics and Druids are SUPPOSED to follow a code. It's hardly unfair to expect players to have to deal with what are honestly pretty minor restrictions.

That said, I've never actually had a Druid or Cleric fall in my games, or a Paladin either, since I generally run the codes of conduct on a "spirit of the law" basis: as long as you're trying, you're OK. On the other hand, if you act like the protagonists of Another Gaming Comic or Knights of the Dinner Table, that's your own fault. :)

Re banlists, as mentioned, the Test of Spite banlist is a good place to start.

[Angry Bob]

Actually, I've always seen paladins as less chosen then clerics, and should have a less restrictive code.

[Coidzor]

In response to the criticisms of the codes of conduct, I feel like a lot of you have had bad experiences with DMs being ambiguous about what the code of conduct entails until it's too late and then springing it on you at the worst possible moment and making it unnecessarily hard to atone. This is not the intent of these changes. First, for the cleric, it simply makes sense that if you're going to serve a god, the god's going to stop giving you power if you stop serving them. Second, I hate crippling characters that haven't been asking for it for a very long time. No one's going to be stripped of their power for no reason at all, and certainly not for a single thing, unless they happened to, say, butcher an orphanage for the lulz as a cleric of Pelor.

No, it's codes of conduct themselves. They're almost always unnecessarily restrictive and dumb because you can't have a strict code and have it actually work out consistently in play, even without the DM being a jerk intentionally there's going to be problems with Paladins in most cases, and adding codes of conduct for two more classes (which have to have varieties for multiple alignments/deities too) is just a lot of work to create a lot more work and hassle down the line.

Thusly, they're objected to on principle, but it does at least sound like you'll try to avoid having any glaring pitfalls, so you might have a chance of pulling it off.


Yeah, I can't see any cause for outrage here.

Because there's a difference between saying one thing and appearing to say another.

You say, items can and will be destroyed, especially via disjunction, and players will hear "I'm going to intentionally go out of my way in playing the baddies in order to cripple you, Mr. John Doe, if you play an Artificer."

[Curmudgeon]

Clerics and Druids are subject to a code of conduct as noticeable and violatable as the Paladin's, thought not necessarily exactly the same as the paladin's.

Ex-Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.
With this change from gross violation to simple violation you're either going to encourage players to go godless (a reasonable option, giving up access to the War domain and spells like Weapon of the Deity), or you're planning to cobble together some sort of ad hoc restriction on godless Clerics (who normally have no code of conduct) as a house rule. Which is it?

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, and I strongly disagree with Volos. The strongest power discrepancies exist within core, and some of the classic exploits like chain gating and wish loops are core only. The magic item creation guidelines are also dodgy if used as anything more than guidelines.

If there is anything you need to go over carefully, it's core. Core-only is the worst possible quick-fix way to pursue balance. A more detailed approach such as the OP is taking is wise. Of course, if only one players a problem, talking to him might be a good fix as well...but sometimes it helps to outline in black and white what you consider problematic, rather than giving them vague guidance such as "this is too powerful".

[Saph]

With this change from gross violation to simple violation you're either going to encourage players to go godless (a reasonable option, giving up access to the War domain and spells like Weapon of the Deity), or you're planning to cobble together some sort of ad hoc restriction on godless Clerics (who normally have no code of conduct) as a house rule. Which is it?

*sigh* Or the players could actually try to more-or-less follow the principles of their deity? Crazy idea, I know.

I've been DMing for a long time and I've always expected divine caster characters to follow their deity's code of conduct. I've never had any problems with it. Not everyone treats character creation as an exercise in "maximise power, minimise restrictions".

[Drynwyn]

This seems O.K. In rewinds to the "toys" thing, I think the intent was "I'm not going to avoid targeting your things just because they are valuable" not "I'm arbitrarily going to constantly try to rob you of your class features."

[VirOath]

Well then, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Angry Bob. Just the way you stated them in the OP was more to saying "This will happen, it's the downside and limitation of the class, suck it up and deal with it." rather than "This is the weakness of your class, cover your butt cause when you piss someone off they will be smart about it and not pull any punches."

The difference in tone is important, because one turns it from being a DM Hand Wave away, no save or safety measures that will work to being something that is a target as a consequence of their actions.

And without saying that there will be high loot with plenty of down time, all comments will fall back to the standard campaign dynamic for those things.

But, that simple clarification has turned it from a campaign that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole to something I actually want to play.

And yeah, the test of spite ban list is about all you'll need then. The DMM restrictions are a little overkill, considering the feat itself has to be tied to one metamagic, DMM persist is about the worst of the offenders and easy to quash. I still feel that as a matter of principle, that a Psy-Artificer shouldn't be denied from making magic items unless there is a psy equivalent to most general magic items in your campaign.

If something comes up that is far, far too much then just ban it after the fact and give him a free change at no cost. You are the DM, and this is a problem player you have, as stated before. But best of luck with your game.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

I think you need to be clear about this. Is it a guaranteed fact that wizards/archivists/artificers are going to have their toys stolen, despite any precautions of their own or their attempts to retrieve them? And if that's so, then why isn't the gear of the other party members being targeted as well?

If you're dead set on this 'rule' then you need very good answers to these questions. A wizard/archivist/artificer getting their goodies stolen can make an interesting plot every now and then, taking them out of their comfort zone as they try to retrieve what was stolen from them. It can be particularly challenging to an archivist or wizard since they suddenly find themselves unable to replenish their spells so they need to carefully manage what they have remaining. But after the first time or two, if the players take efforts to prevent such things from happening again, then you shouldn't arbitrarily decide their stuff gets taken anyway, all that tells the players is they are fully subject to your whimsy about when they are allowed to play their class, rather then being put on the edge of their seat every now and then with the warm fuzzy knowledge that their preparations have an actual EFFECT on the game.

As is though, if wizards/archivists/artificers are UNDENIABLY going to have their gear stolen, without any chance of getting it back no matter what they do and no chance to prevent it from being stolen, then you're better off just outright banning the classes to save yourself from whining.

[ClockShock]

Another to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with the last couple.

Do you use rust monsters? That's just fair game right - scare the silly little fighters a little.
But don't you dare go touching that dirt cheap spell pouch that any wizard can buy seven of. That's just mean. Where's your sense in balance dudes? Wizards totally have the short end of the stick already.

Similar for the Code of Conduct. There's nothing too wrong with a Paladin's code of conduct as long as it's played with good/sensible intentions (on the part of the player AND the DM)

So really, it's down to the DM. And if the DM is a total jerk the house rules don't matter.

Having said that, the actual problem does indeed sound like a problem player. If he's only having fun when he's crushing everything, he's not going to have fun after all these house rules are in place (or find something you didn't think of - you're effectively giving him a list of challenges to CharOp around)
Talk to him / Boot him / Find some other way to stroke his ego whilst you keep the game fun for the rest of your players.

[vikingofdoom]

With this change from gross violation to simple violation you're either going to encourage players to go godless (a reasonable option, giving up access to the War domain and spells like Weapon of the Deity), or you're planning to cobble together some sort of ad hoc restriction on godless Clerics (who normally have no code of conduct) as a house rule. Which is it?

Except that you could still take War domain, say that you're belief has a favoured weapon, and use Weapon of the Deity easily enough. Making it so that players are more likely to follow an ideal then a god makes for fewer restrictions on their clerics (especially since there is no way to make a godless cleric fall).

[Tyndmyr]

*sigh* Or the players could actually try to more-or-less follow the principles of their deity? Crazy idea, I know.

I've been DMing for a long time and I've always expected divine caster characters to follow their deity's code of conduct. I've never had any problems with it. Not everyone treats character creation as an exercise in "maximise power, minimise restrictions".

If it's ridiculous, sure. I would err on the side of making the paladin's restrictions less severe though, not making others more so.

For instance, if a paladin starts robbing and pillaging from innocents for his own personal gain, why sure, a fall is in order. For any lawful good character, a change of alignment might be in order if it's repeated. If you get too many steps away from your diety, sure you can lose favor with him.

However, there's little to be gained by focusing on the strictness of a code. I never bother with considering falling at all unless the player is making choices intentionally contrary, and even then, I like to give the "are you sure?" warning. Falling by accident shouldn't be a thing unless the player is being quite careless.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm agreeing with questioning the two clauses under debate, because of how they specifically single out the high-tier classes. Melee classes like fighters are completely dependent on their weapons, which can also be quite expensive, but if you're only singling out the Wizards/Archivists/Artificers to have their stuff sundered/disjoined/stolen, then it's a massive versimilitude destroyer, and unfair to the players. Artificers in particular, because they are an entire class built around items - singling them out for item-related punishment is basically turning them into a commoner. In the second case...RP should never be enforced with mechanical penalties...if it must, there should be mechanical bonuses for good RP as well.

If it's an OOC problem, as someone noted, fix it OOC. this won't solve the problem you're having.


*sigh* Or the players could actually try to more-or-less follow the principles of their deity? Crazy idea, I know.

I've been DMing for a long time and I've always expected divine caster characters to follow their deity's code of conduct. I've never had any problems with it. Not everyone treats character creation as an exercise in "maximise power, minimise restrictions".

Where are the codes of conduct for deities listed? Even in Complete Divine, I don't see any explict codes for clerics of deity X or Y. That means it's up to the DM to decide, and in this case, it becomes a blank check for the DM to arbitrarily decide the character loses all their spells and abilities.

[Saph]

If it's ridiculous, sure. I would err on the side of making the paladin's restrictions less severe though, not making others more so.

For instance, if a paladin starts robbing and pillaging from innocents for his own personal gain, why sure, a fall is in order. For any lawful good character, a change of alignment might be in order if it's repeated. If you get too many steps away from your diety, sure you can lose favor with him.

However, there's little to be gained by focusing on the strictness of a code. I never bother with considering falling at all unless the player is making choices intentionally contrary, and even then, I like to give the "are you sure?" warning. Falling by accident shouldn't be a thing unless the player is being quite careless.

I'd agree, but all the OP said was "make the Cleric and Druid follow a code like the Paladin". That's really not a change at all, just following what the PHB says.

Obviously, you shouldn't make them fall just for the sake of it, but if a character is specifically described as the divinely ordained champion of X, it's reasonable to expect them to make at least some effort to live up to it. After all, it's the player who picks what deity/alignment his character follows, not the DM. With every code under the sun open to you, it shouldn't be that hard to find one you're happy with!

[Calimehter]

Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

I was really wondering what all the fuss was about with this one. I mean, it would almost seem to require a house rule or some very alternate sort of setting for a player to assume that extremely valuable objects of his might not be the target of thieves or other dishonest people, or even just get seperated from his person by everday happenstance (especially when the "everday happenstances" of your chosen career include clashes with everything from orcs to demigods).

.
.
.


Then I noticed the word "will" was italicized . . .

Yeah, that makes it sound more like a threat. I would certainly rephrase to something more like "Yes, your stuff *might* be lost or taken from you in some fashion, and your valuable stuff *will* be taken if no precautions or safeguards are taken. The fact that your character will become less powerful after losing his stuff is not a reason to assume that it is untouchable."

EDIT - wow, lots of replys between when I started typing and when I stopped. :smalleek:

[Angry Bob]

Changed OP, discuss changed versions from now on.

[nedz]

Oohh - the words changed beneath my keyboard. Have the fixed the Matrix again ? :smallsmile:


Shivering touch offers a fortitude save and lasts 1 round/3 caster levels. Lesser shivering touch is unchanged.
There are zillions of spells out there, I think you could just lose this one.


You can only apply Divine Metamagic to feats with a slot adjustment of +3 or lower. Spells so adjusted must be prepared this way at the beginning of the day.
Suppose I'm playing a Spontaneous Cleric, or a Favoured Soul, or a Spirit Shamen ?


EDIT: NO DMM PERSIST. NIGHTSTICKS DON'T STACK ANYWAY.
DMM QUICKEN


Canceled, preserved for context:
Wizard/Archivists/Artificers will have their various toys threatened, stolen and fenced, or destroyed from time to time.

EDIT: reworded version of above:
Characters with expensive class features should take efforts to protect them. NPCs will eventually be canny enough to target them. Once they do, how much effort you've put into protecting them will determine whether or not they succeed.

Isn't this just saying Stuff Happens ?

[Angry Bob]

There are zillions of spells out there, I think you could just lose this one.

DMM QUICKEN

Isn't this just saying Stuff Happens ?

First: That's why I'm looking for stuff to also fix or ban. It says so right in the title.

Second: Fair enough. But at least now there's no more all day polymorph BS.

Third: Maybe. There are campaigns where your stuff will be stolen at some point no matter how many dungeons worth of treasure you invest in protecting it, and campaigns where your stuff will never get touched no matter how many INT 34 villains you have. I hope to first strike a balance between the two and second give my players fair warning beforehand.

[Curmudgeon]

Except that you could still take War domain, say that you're belief has a favoured weapon
While you could say that your belief has a favored weapon, there's nothing in the rules to back that up. By RAW there are only favored weapons for deities, and anything else is an uphill struggle to get your DM to create a favorable house rule for you. The DM could just as easily decide that the favored weapon is something random and exotic like a goad (Frostburn, page 76). Since War only grants Martial Weapon Proficiency, having an exotic favored weapon would just be a feat tax. (The moral: Don't try to pull something like this on your DM unless you can live with the consequences.)

[Coidzor]

(The moral: Don't try to pull something like this on your DM unless you can live with the consequences.)

Because wanting a martial weapon proficiency is so totally OP that one must be trying to pull one over on the DM. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Because wanting a martial weapon proficiency is so totally OP that one must be trying to pull one over on the DM. :smalltongue:
I realize you're being facetious, but the honest answer to that is: yes, it is overpowered, and vikingofdoom's approach is trying to pull one over on the DM with such a claim.

A Cleric is already a Tier 1 character, with plenty of options (like Divine Power) to make them very effective in combat. A deityless Cleric has free choice among all domains, not just the subset granted by a single god. And now you want to insist that on top of that extra power they should get both the two free feats granted by War domain and free choice of any weapon they like?

You started overpowered, and pushed way past that point. There's nothing in the RAW which supports this scheme.

[Coidzor]

I realize you're being facetious, but the honest answer to that is: yes, it is overpowered, and vikingofdoom's approach is trying to pull one over on the DM with such a claim.

A Cleric is already a Tier 1 character, with plenty of options (like Divine Power) to make them very effective in combat. A deityless Cleric has free choice among all domains, not just the subset granted by a single god. And now you want to insist that on top of that extra power they should get both the two free feats granted by War domain and free choice of any weapon they like?

You started overpowered, and pushed way past that point. There's nothing in the RAW which supports this scheme.

Not in RAW =/= Overpowered. "Free" weapon focus will never unbalance any character because it's so weak it's barely a feat. And martial weapons are just martial weapons, none of them are particularly powerful or offer anything special.

They're giving up that free reign of domains to spend one of their two on War, which is bad for spells and in terms of abilities is not very impressive at all. In fact, a cleric picking War as a domain and getting a scythe, guisarme, composite longbow, or greatsword is still more manageable than using it to pick Planning or Magic.

If you're allowing divine power cheese, then there's even less reason to forbid them from having a martial weapon, because they've already gained the real advantage of the BAB to fuel power attack. So they're dealing slashing and 2 more weapon damage instead of bludgeoning and piercing from twohanding a morningstar... Or can spend feats lowering themselves further into the warrior archetype by learning how to trip rather than improving their casting.

So, yeah. Name a broken martial weapon.

[Jothki]

Claiming that deityless clerics are more powerful because of their ability to freely select domains only makes sense if all of the gods have their domains chosen and balanced specifically to avoid combinations that would be more powerful. Otherwise, either 'balance' in a particular setting comes down to whether or not however many pulls on the slot machine of divine powers happens to hit on a jackpot, or the domains are all roughly equal anyway and getting to freely pick shouldn't matter.

[Roderick_BR]

The rest are more than fine, but these are terrible. The first is "don't play these classes, or the DM will have it out for you." The second is unnecessary roleplay restriction (probably with a penalty for failing to follow the code), which is never fun.

If you don't want those classes running around, do your players the favor of outright banning them, 'cause the above two rulings are basically anti-fun.

Just one man's opinion. The rest, as I said, are reasonable and solid choices.
I agree. Druids already have a "code". If you want to put a little limit on the clericzilla, you could add some minor code based on which domains they pick, and that makes them lose spells (lowest first) as they violate it. Something simple like "need to help the wounded" for Healing, "can't flee from fights (unless they are obviously one-sided against you or in your favor" for War, and "need to always be on a trip to meet new places (can't stay in the same location for over a week)" for Travel.

I don't think that losing their 'toys' is too bad. there already have rules for it, just don't abuse it. Smart opponents, when making ambushes, may try to target these, but within reason.

The rest are not too different from what some DMs use to avoid abuse.

[Curmudgeon]

Claiming that deityless clerics are more powerful because of their ability to freely select domains only makes sense if all of the gods have their domains chosen and balanced specifically to avoid combinations that would be more powerful.
That's wrong. The power comes not just from the combinations of two domains, but all the other character options that can combine with any two domains. Wizards don't have any more powerful spells available than Sorcerers do, but they're a full tier more powerful largely because they have more flexibility in choosing those spells. If you have a Cleric build that requires both extra speed and a way to avoid auto-failing saves you can choose both Celerity and Pride ─ but only if you're deityless, because there's no god who has both of these domains in their portfolio. That flexibility makes for a more powerful character. The fact that there might be a single god who can grant two different domains which by themselves are of roughly equal total power doesn't keep your deityless character from being better for the purpose you intend.

[Amnestic]

I agree. Druids already have a "code". If you want to put a little limit on the clericzilla, you could add some minor code based on which domains they pick, and that makes them lose spells (lowest first) as they violate it. Something simple like "need to help the wounded" for Healing, "can't flee from fights (unless they are obviously one-sided against you or in your favor" for War, and "need to always be on a trip to meet new places (can't stay in the same location for over a week)" for Travel.


I really, really don't like that suggestion for Travel. Healing seems fine (even natural for a Healing cleric), War...is okay, though it somewhat restricts the encounters you can throw at the players. Travel? Hate it. It hamstrings both the player and the DM because suddenly the DM needs to keep the party moving from place to place. Dungeons need to be short enough to be cleared in 7 days - may not normally be an issue, but if you're going for a BBEG dungeon they really might need that long - and you may as well give up on any city-based adventures you might have.

[Ungvar]

EDIT: Reworded version of above: Clerics and Druids are expected to follow a code of conduct. This is more of a reminder than a houserule for clerics, since it already says they have to in the PHB, but the druid's is new. It is like to a paladin's code, but more forgiving and less immediately retributive, with different specifics, depending on your god or druidic order. The paladin's code is similarly altered, and is in fact less strict than those above, owing to their diminished connection to their god compared to that of a cleric.

There's no problem with this, so long as you actually give your players an explicit code to follow. If you hold them to some undefined personal notion of "how a druid acts" or "What Would Pelor Do?", then yes, it's kinda unfair. But the good news is that the very act of making a specific code can give depth to RP. If you actually develop articles of the faith for Pelor, then the PC cleric can have a firm foundation upon which conflict can be based. Bonus XP for quoting "scriptures" while laying down the smite.

[Tyndmyr]

First: That's why I'm looking for stuff to also fix or ban. It says so right in the title.

Second: Fair enough. But at least now there's no more all day polymorph BS.

I direct you to PaO. You can afford two castings of that at what, fourth level? Fifth? Feh. If the polymorph school is allowed as written, DMM is not really the source of it's problems.

Free weapon focus, even a martial one, is great for gishes. It means you can get into abjurant champion without bothering with a feat, a fighter dip, or human paragon for three levels. I realize that situation isn't exactly what you're talking about, but yes, adding weapon proficiencies certainly can be a significant power boost depending on the situation, mostly because proficiencies are not uncommon PrC prereqs.

If you must have codes, have them be written codes, before the campaign begins, that the player and DM agree to. At least that way you can avoid potential arguments. Add examples of what would cause a fall if necessary.

[Angry Bob]

There's no problem with this, so long as you actually give your players an explicit code to follow. If you hold them to some undefined personal notion of "how a druid acts" or "What Would Pelor Do?", then yes, it's kinda unfair. But the good news is that the very act of making a specific code can give depth to RP. If you actually develop articles of the faith for Pelor, then the PC cleric can have a firm foundation upon which conflict can be based. Bonus XP for quoting "scriptures" while laying down the smite.

Ungvar has the right idea. All clerics need a deity, though custom deities are accomodated. All deities have an explicit list of "Thou Shalt" and "Thou Shalt Not" commandments to be followed, with varying punishment for violating them.

Examples:

Wee Jas:

- Unless time and cost prevents you from doing so, provide funereal rites appropriate to the faith of any dead you come across, regardless of their status as friend or enemy. If you fail to do this, the goddess will be unable to escort them to the appropriate afterlife, and you will find that you recieve fewer spells per day, depending on how many times you've failed to do this and whether or not you've atoned. If you instead erect a traveler's grave(a basic marker with the remains of the deceased buried underneath), the goddess is more lenient, but if you resort to this in every circumstance, you will incur the usual penalties.

Clause by Glyphstone:
- In any event where you have sufficient time and resources, but cannot perform the appropriate rites due to lack of knowledge or a moral/ethical conflict, you may substitute the funeral rites for Wee Jas instead and pass the soul into her care". In cases where you are rushed, the traveller's grave can stay, and she punishes you if you have the time but don't perform the rites.

-Unlike most clerics, the holy symbol of Wee Jas must be extravagant. It must be worth 100 gp if you are level 2 or higher, 600 if you are level 6 or higher, 1000 if you are 10th level or higher, 2000 if you are level 15 or higher, or 5000 if you are level 20 or higher. If you are deprived of this symbol against your will, you will not be penalized unless you don't either attempt to retrieve it or obtain a new one at first opportunity.

EDIT: Old requirement, preserved for context.
- Every month, you must dedicate ruby jewelry at a temple to the goddess. This jewelry must be worth 100 gp x your character level. Failure to do so will result in the loss of most of your spellcasting ability. If you plan to be away from a temple or otherwise unable to acquire the appropriate dedication, you must dedicate an appropriate value depending on the time you plan to be away before leaving. If you are gone longer than you had planned to, the goddess understands, but will exact punishement if you don't make the effort to fulfill this dedication immediately upon returning to civilization.

Canceled, looking for replacements:
- Don't **** with grave sites. Tomb robbers will be immediately stripped of their rank and spellcasting ability unless given explicit permission otherwise by the goddess herself or one of her heralds. If you associate with those you know to be tomb robbers, you must a)make every effort to return what had been stolen and b) extract oaths that they will not do so again. Again, there may be exceptions as ordained by the goddess.

- Do not create undead unless the faith of the creature to be raised allows for it. If you don't know, you can't.

In other words, nothing about a code should be able to sneak up on the player. On the other hand, restriction do have to mean something. In this case, they mean a small expenditure of time and money, and that the adventuring party can't consider graverobbing a reliable source of income. They'll just have to slaughter living things and take their stuff instead. The exception at the bottom of the third element is to allow for the retrieval of McGuffins and things Wee Jas wants for herself or her clergy.

[Tyndmyr]

If you associate with those you know to be tomb robbers, you must a)make every effort to return what had been stolen and b) extract oaths that they will not do so again.

I would strongly encourage rethinking any part of a code that makes you responsible for the actions of others in the party. Rule-enforced party conflict is a bad thing in 3.5.

[Angry Bob]

Well, it is just a first draft of the code that I hammered out for an example.

[vikingofdoom]

I also suggest removing the VoP-esque restrictions as those are the most likely to cause player's grief. No-one likes being forced to sacrifice part of their loot just to keep class abilities that should be free or mostly free.

[The Glyphstone]

Numbers 1 and 4 are good.

2 isn't - you're penalizing their WBL by too much, making it a mechanical nerf instead of a RP-based stricture. Drop it to something more trivial like 10GP/level/month and it works (remember that plenty of clergy aren't active adventurers, so they wouldn't be able to afford such a heavy tax).

3 definitely isn't - now you're becoming a stick-up-the-butt that a paladin is, multiplied significantly because you're taking away their shinies. As mentioned, rules-enforced party conflict is bad.

[Angry Bob]

Points all taken. See edited post.

[Tavar]

Number 1....damn. Seems okay, until you think about it. What are the standard funeral conditions? Also, burying or otherwise disposing of multiple bodies...
That's harsh. Very, very harsh.

[Angry Bob]

It only requires you to do so if you have the time and money to. If you a) don't know what rites are required or b) are short on time and money, the goddess accepts a basic "traveler's grave". If you are slaughtering your way to the final boss, obviously the requirements are waived until you have time to fulfill this.

[The Glyphstone]

What if you have the time/money to perform the rites, but doing so would be against your own ethics and/or those of Wee Jas? Erynthul, for example, or Grummsh, might have some very icky funeral rites that'd qualify as an Evil act to be performing.

[Angry Bob]

What if you have the time/money to perform the rites, but doing so would be against your own ethics and/or those of Wee Jas? Erynthul, for example, or Grummsh, might have some very icky funeral rites that'd qualify as an Evil act to be performing.

True. There'd have to be something for that. Let me get back to you on that.

[Tavar]

Digging a simple traveler's grave for someone isn't to bad, no. Doing it for 5 people, though? Or more? Then the fact that you need to do funeral rites often, and, yeah.

Also, most funeral rites are rather involved, so it seems like you might as well say don't be an adventuring cleric of Wee Jas.

[Angry Bob]

If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

[The Glyphstone]

True. There'd have to be something for that. Let me get back to you on that.

Idea!

Wee Jas is the goddess of death. Howbout something along the lines of "in any event where you have sufficient time and resources, but cannot perform the appropriate rites due to lack of knowledge or a moral/ethical conflict, you may substitute the funeral rites for Wee Jas instead and pass the soul into her care". In cases where you are rushed, the traveller's grave can stay, and she punishes you if you have the time but don't perform the rites.

[Angry Bob]

Idea!

Wee Jas is the goddess of death. Howbout something along the lines of "in any event where you have sufficient time and resources, but cannot perform the appropriate rites due to lack of knowledge or a moral/ethical conflict, you may substitute the funeral rites for Wee Jas instead and pass the soul into her care". In cases where you are rushed, the traveller's grave can stay, and she punishes you if you have the time but don't perform the rites.

That works perfectly. It's mine now.

[Tavar]

How long are the rites?

That's probably the core of my complaint. Most religious services have very lengthy and involved burial rites. Add in the time needed to make the grave, plus attendant rituals. And if they need to do separate rituals for each person(probably not).

Also, how long does it take to dig a grave/set up a funeral pyre?

[Angry Bob]

If I make an effort not to be a jerk about it, an adventuring cleric can make do with attenuated versions of the appropriate rites. On the other hand, if you have downtime, this is something to do with it after the dungeon's been cleared. Nothing in the code requires it be carried out immediately, just that it be carried out.

At the end of the day, I want these codes to be things that should be expected by the various gods, without being something I can drop on a player I don't like at unexpected times for no reason.

[Tyndmyr]

Be aware that PC classes are generally considered rare in most worlds. So, people like clerics and pallys are top tier champions, and adepts and experts make up the majority of the church, and handle most of the drudge work. So, while it's reasonable to expect them to follow the tenents of their faith, it shouldn't be a major factor.

So, for Wee Jas and the like, if it's a battle in a civilized area, other people can handle the rituals and the like. The most a player might have to do is a quick ritual when no other ceremony can be had due to being in the bottom of a dungeon or something.

[Telok]

Personally I advocate using the Dungeon Crawl gods. They are based (mostly) on rather traditional D&D style gods and come with pretty good rules since they are active gods in a computer game.

http://crawl.chaosforge.org/index.php?title=God

For paladins, http://crawl.chaosforge.org/index.php?title=The_Shining_One

[Angry Bob]

Now that the mess about the codes of conduct is winding down, I've added something about metamagic. Tell me if you think it's too harsh. Keep in mind that the main complaints from the group is that a 6th-level mage is "doing damage like a 15th level mage." Quoted almost word-for-word.

[Curmudgeon]

I think you could simplify the metamagic rules considerably:

No metamagic cost reducers.
No free metamagic.

[Angry Bob]

True, there's no reason not to get rid of metamagic rods as well. But stuff like Battle Blessing and Radiant Servant are hardly broken, are they? How about spell secrets?

[Tyndmyr]

I think you could simplify the metamagic rules considerably:

No metamagic cost reducers.
No free metamagic.


Make sure to make it clear that the Suddens are not part of this.

Because honestly, those are the least broken ways to get metamagic in existence. 1/day is pretty limited, and getting to quicken requires sinking four feats in advance.

[Curmudgeon]

Make sure to make it clear that the Suddens are not part of this.
Sudden <whatever> metamagic isn't free; it costs a feat for one daily use.

[Angry Bob]

Slightly changed the metamagic rule. There's only one exception, now. Sudden Metamagic is still up in the air.

[VirOath]

Hmmm, well, I'm actually a fan of metamagic reducers, though it needs to be brought under control. No question about it, letting it run willy nilly is just silly.

A good way I found is to have the total cost, without reducers, still be something they could cast from a slot it was designed for. So if they Still, Silent, Invisible Spell, and Empower Magic Missile and have the magic reducers so that it's still just a 1st level spell slot, they still have to have the slot to cast it from as if they didn't have the metamagic reducers (in this case, +4 spell levels, or a 5th level spell slot)

So, powerful metamagic is still viable and able to be used on low level spells with the investment, but you would still have to have a high enough spell slot to cast it without the reducers. That pretty much kills the overkill factor as there is always a limit to the metamagic, they will still never be able to metamgic their highest level of spells.

Banning it outright works as well, wizards don't need nice things after all, they are awesome enough just for memorizing spells every morning. But I'll be with the others before me, Sudden Metamagic is fine as is, not over powered, and leaves casters with fallback "OH SHI-" feats if they want them.