Houseruling - What's necessary and what's senseless?

[Tr011]

I am DMing a new party atm and got some balancing problems. Most (better said: 3 out of 4) of the players are new to DnD, but not to P&P-RPGs. The one who isn't new, first thought of a metamagic-oriented Kobold-Sorcerer with Incantatrix at high level and a one-level-dip in monk for Cha to AC via Feat. Of course, some ACFs are used to get rid of unuseful classfeatures etcetc.
Now he dumped that powerful character to start a new one - a warforged artificer. The other players are going much less powerful (a whispergnome rogue facing to go assassin soon, a bard and another warforged, but as crusader, ofc a good class and his AC + dmgreduction is huge at low level, but this shouldn't get out of control).

What would you do to keep save that the campaign isn't going to be broken and how should I allow/forbid things?

More general: what do you ban in your games? I think of banning Leadership, because it's obviously easy to abuse and I don't really see how it's gonna be any kind of funny with leadership. Traits and Flaws are banned too (but I think of giving the PCs free bonus feats chosen by DM which fit their characters, given at lvl6, 12 and 18. What else should get banned?

/edit: books are atm all official 3.5 books allowed in my campaign. Wouldn't know why banning whole books makes sense (ofc Unearthed Arcana f.e. contains very much powerful stuff, but not much of it is tooo OP i think)

[Choco]

I generally allow my players access to everything, until they actually start abusing things.

In your case, I would not-so-gently remind the experienced player that it is NOT COOL to munchkin when in a group with a bunch of new people. If he can't design a non-min-maxed character (I admit I have that issue on occasion too) then you and/or the rest of the group should do it for him.

[danzibr]

I generally allow my players access to everything, until they actually start abusing things.

In your case, I would not-so-gently remind the experienced player that it is NOT COOL to munchkin when in a group with a bunch of new people. If he can't design a non-min-maxed character (I admit I have that issue on occasion too) then you and/or the rest of the group should do it for him.

Yeah that's good advice.

In general, I'd say houserules which simplify things are good. I mean, less paperwork and such, but not gimp the game at all.

[Curmudgeon]

Things I'd do to try to head off trouble:

Ban all metamagic cost reducers, and "free" metamagic (Incantatrix in particular) is just never going to happen.
Scrutinize individual spells. Don't let Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange be used for any form the PC hasn't personally made a Spot check to see, and the required Knowledge check to identify. (After all, the various Monster Manuals aren't part of those spells' entries, and letting player knowledge substitute for character knowledge is a sure route to trouble.)
Restrict access to new spells. I like to make scrolls cost 5x as much, and appear in treasure 1/10th as often. Spellcasters almost never loan out their spellbooks, and the fees are at least 10x as high as standard. Beyond the 2 free spells per level, Wizards really have to work to find new magic.
Here's the big one: never use dice for any part of character development, and adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):
15 Point Buy (This Is Where The Wizard Is.)
22 Point Buy
28 Point Buy
32 Point Buy
40 Point Buy (This Is Where The Monk Is.)
You Might Try 50 Here, But Really: Just Skip Characters This Weak.
This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.

[Pigkappa]

There are too many ways to optimize a character to outshine the new players. You just need to talk to that player and suggest he chooses a weak class and doesn't try to make it better.

[Amnestic]

Have a gentleman's/lady's agreement that you won't over/under optimize compared to the rest of the group, so no one person is overshadowed/hogs the spotlight? Seems a hell of a lot easier than throwing around the banhammer.

[Asheram]

Personally, our GM banned all leadership, contact and the rest of social feats like that.
If you want to get a friend in high/low places or gather up an army, you do it through roleplay, not force it by a feat.

[Tyndmyr]

I generally allow my players access to everything, until they actually start abusing things.

In your case, I would not-so-gently remind the experienced player that it is NOT COOL to munchkin when in a group with a bunch of new people. If he can't design a non-min-maxed character (I admit I have that issue on occasion too) then you and/or the rest of the group should do it for him.

Good stuff. If you ban everything that can be abused, you end up with a very large amount of work ahead of you.

A quick chat with the player is often good.

[Togo]

Ban anything that doesn't suit the flavour of your game. Beyond the core books, you may find that's quite a lot. If nothing else some extra books assume levels of culture and technology that's inappropriate for many settings. Chosen of Mystra can't really work if you're not in the Realms, and don't have a single God or Goddess of Magic, Leadership assumes the player is acquiring followers and cohorts as part of the story (or backstory) and shouldn't be allowed unless it's part of the story, and so on.

Generally I allow everything in the Core books, and everything else has to be agreed. Don't have magic shops, don't have scroll emporiums, and don't have high level wizards who let other powerful interlopers copy their unique magic for a pittance. PCs should be able to get hold of most things, but they need to be able to justify how. Powerful magic and strange and unusal feats don't pop out of the ether. Anything that you havn't placed in the game should need your permission as a matter of course.

That said, a chat with your players is more valuable to maintain balance. It's just hard to maintain a sense of place if all the players are loaded down with magic mart items, p-classes and spells.

[McSmack]

I typically only ban things if I don't own the books or have access to them or if it's something that really doesn't fit in my campaign world (I do that a lot with races because I don't want to create cities/societies for a few dozen uncommon races.)

I honestly haven't had a character ask to take Leadership yet, so I'm mostly abivilent on it. Though the only issue I have with it is party size (I don't want to have everyone at the table running two PC's via cohorts.) In a campaign with only two or three players that might change.

I agree that your best bet is to just ask the player to tone it down so as to keep the game fun for everyone, but only if it looks like it's going to be a problem. If he's playing an artificer, it can be significantly less damaging as an artificer tends to overgear the entire party, and everyone loves discounted magic items.

A lot of it depends on the party level. Power balance issues typically don't show up until high level play.

[Tyndmyr]

My standard House rules are as follows:

No infinite combos.
No Tainted Scholar, Illithid Savant, or Beholder Mage.
Multiclass penalties don't exist.
Diplomacy uses an opposed system similar to the Giants.
No Kender(forgot about this one until recently).

For specific campaigns, there may be additional restrictions. Typically, these are things that are specific to a setting other than what we're playing. I'll make an effort to refluff things that people care about, if any.

I tend to be very lenient on what is allowed. Starting gear can be literally anything you can afford with WBL. I own all the books, and understand most of them extremely well. The few I do not, I will learn if a player wishes to try them.

However, be aware that my group's optimization level averages higher than yours, and nobody is specifically out to break the game. They want to be good at the game, yes, but they do want to actually play it. If a player does not wish to do that, then you have a problem.

[Agent_0042]

I'd first suggest a gentleman's agreement between you and the artificer's player, as if you know one another that's usually enough to keep people in line. If that doesn't work, an artificer's power is pretty much directly proportional to the amount of free time they have. So if he starts to become disproportionately powerful compared to his party mates, cut down on the downtime you give them. They really aren't that hard to keep in check, compared to some of the other high-power classes.

Can't help you on the general banlist, though. Unless it's setting-related, I tend to be an "everything goes" GM.

[under_score]

Shivering Touch. Don't allow Shivering Touch.

(Frostburn 104)

[JonestheSpy]

If you ban everything that can be abused, you end up with a very large amount of work ahead of you.


See, to me this is just backwards. Like Togo said, the way to prevent the kind of silliness the OP described is to start with the basics and then only allow what you want, not say "everything is fair game except these things I specifically banned". If you start with your boundries, e.g. SRD (with the obvious gamebreakers banned or modified) + books X and Y, then it's the player's responsibility to convince the DM that it won't harm the game if they want to do something outside those parameters.

Personally I think all these "Gentleman's Agreement" things are ridiculous - nothing more than feeding a munchkin's ego. Instead of putting the player in the position of control over the game, the DM should be making sure that can't happen.

[ffone]

Don't do DM chosen bonus feats. That tells players to 'roleplay' to gun for certain feats, rather than the way they really want to. And it could lead to resentment etc.

2nding on NO rolls for attributes or HP.

[Choco]

See, to me this is just backwards. Like Togo said, the way to prevent the kind of silliness the OP described is to start with the basics and then only allow what you want, not say "everything is fair game except these things I specifically banned". If you start with your boundries, e.g. SRD (with the obvious gamebreakers banned or modified) + books X and Y, then it's the player's responsibility to convince the DM that it won't harm the game if they want to do something outside those parameters.

I personally have never seen this stop a dedicated munchkin. The bad ones will whine and scream constantly that you are gimping them, the good ones will take what you give them and min/max that to all hell.

It is especially laughable when a DM limits the players to only core to "cut back on powergaming" (yes I actually had a DM do that), only to be surprised to find out that a lot of the most broken stuff out there is core...

Point is no matter how much you limit, what is left over will not all be on the same level, and dedicated munchkins will easily find the most powerful of what they have left, and ways to exploit everything. As such, I see no point in banning ANYTHING unless it actually becomes a problem.

EDIT: Except of course if it is campaign inappropriate. If I was doing a desert campaign and someone came up with a character made almost exclusively from Frostburn, we would have a problem. But even then I don't explicitly ban anything (though I do reserve the right to veto anything I view inappropriate) and tell the players to use their better judgment. If you can't trust your players to do that, I would recommend finding some new players :smallamused:.

[Godskook]

Here's what I do, and so far, my biggest OP issues have been the 1-shotting warblade.

-Metamagic reducers can't be used until you can cast the spells unmitigated.
-Test of Spite's banned and restricted list is all 'by approval only', and PCs should expect heavy houseruling on things listed there(not always, but set the expectation)
-Rich Burlew's polymorph rules are in effect.

'Course, the most skilled player in my campaign is the swift hunter, so I'm probably not getting as much problem PC issues as you are.

[olentu]

EDIT: Except of course if it is campaign inappropriate. If I was doing a desert campaign and someone came up with a character made almost exclusively from Frostburn, we would have a problem. But even then I don't explicitly ban anything (though I do reserve the right to veto anything I view inappropriate) and tell the players to use their better judgment. If you can't trust your players to do that, I would recommend finding some new players :smallamused:.

Antarctica.

[Telonius]

There are only a few things that I outright ban in my games. More than one Nightstick, Divine Metamagic, infinite loops, Dust of Sneezing and Choking, regular Druid (we use Shapeshift only), the Celerity line of spells, and the Contingency line of spells.

First on my list of houserules: "Don't try to break my game." The second is like it: "Add Pun-Pun as overdeity of cheese and metagaming. He will not allow anyone to approach his power."

Just more generally - the first comment had it best. This is, at its heart, an out-of-game issue, and should be handled out-of-game. Personally, I'd recruit the guy. Let him know that these are all new folks, and that you don't want to confuse them on their first time out. But that you'd really appreciate it if you could give them a few tips when it's time for them to level up. Nothing too munchkinny, just help them along their natural gaming development.

[Tyndmyr]

See, to me this is just backwards. Like Togo said, the way to prevent the kind of silliness the OP described is to start with the basics and then only allow what you want, not say "everything is fair game except these things I specifically banned". If you start with your boundries, e.g. SRD (with the obvious gamebreakers banned or modified) + books X and Y, then it's the player's responsibility to convince the DM that it won't harm the game if they want to do something outside those parameters.

Nah. The basic problem he's rightfully worried about is people at very different power tiers. This can occur without any munchkinning at all. I've seen a brand new player pick druid. She happened to like bears. She didn't bother delving through non-core because she wasn't really into that sort of thing. She did pick up natural spell though, because "it seemed druidy". She had no trouble keeping up in a very high tier party at all. Had she been in a core only group with straight fighters and things, she would have been a god among mortals.

Ridiculous ban lists are not the solution to everything. I like to keep mine short, easily manageable, and limited to the sorts of things that I am not interested in ever having in a game for any reason.


Personally I think all these "Gentleman's Agreement" things are ridiculous - nothing more than feeding a munchkin's ego. Instead of putting the player in the position of control over the game, the DM should be making sure that can't happen.

Not at all. The standard Gentleman's Agreement is the core of most roleplaying games. If the players want to play a no-holds barred high op game...well, it's only reasonable for others in a world where such things exist to act somewhat similar. What else are you going to do? Make a ban list sufficiently extensive to force them into extremely low-op characters? Make them play a game they're not interested in? This is not particularly fun.

And note that a determined powergamer is not particularly likely to be stopped by ban lists. Personally, I am amused every time I hear "core only for balance". Or better "core only, no monks. For balance." I mentally write off the DM as having any experience with the system, and assume it's going to probably be a pretty bad campaign. I then typically make a tier 1 caster that can oh-so subtly show the players how terribly wrong the DM is without screwing them over.

[Tr011]

I agree with you, that ofc I need to find a real solution with the player. But even if noone intends to get really OP, they can easily get it just by using something they think is strong, but rly is much too OP (example: the White Dragon with +7 AC and +1 LA can fool new players who don't know much about LA and they maybe think it's still kinda fair trade... but it isn't ofc).


My standard House rules are as follows:

No infinite combos.
No Tainted Scholar, Illithid Savant, or Beholder Mage.
Multiclass penalties don't exist.
WTF no Multiclass penalties? Why? I mean, Favored Class: any should not be nerfed imo.




Diplomacy uses an opposed system similar to the Giants.
No Kender(forgot about this one until recently).
Can u link that opposed system please? (or say book & page, but i don't remember reading some alternate diplo-system in a book...)
What's so OP about Kender? (the luck on saves is also a feat or a racial bonus, the defacto -2 to abilities is a flaw too and immune to fear... not much better than PHB-races to me)

Also, I don't think Metamagic Reduction is overpowered per se. One example:
A friend of mine played an awesome Fighter 12/Wizard 8 at Neverwinternights, taking Still Spell and the Epic Feats to Auto-Still all spells. And he got at rly high levels a full plated dwarvish Wizard with access to all Arcane Spells and a full attack with 4 attacks. Since we are not playing NWN leveling is not about 2 nights with energy drinks to get your auto-metamagic, but I want noone to cut out an idea like this Fighter-Mage with alternate metamagic or MMR to auto-silent/still f.e. Just when a twinned-repeated-maximized Disintegrate is cast without using up a spell slot... then it's obvious enough to just veto that PC.

I don't wanna cut out things that "might" be OP, I wanna cut out as much things that ARE OP/broken per se or just don't fit the world.
Same with Divine Metamagic: If that Black Flame Zealot (after Rogue/Cleric Multiclassing) wants to use Silent Spell on his Truestrike - who would I be if I would ban that? Rogue is T3 if I remember correctly, Cleric is T1-T2 and that PC is just awesome by combining two classes to a flavorful Kukri Master.

The whole shapeshifting-thing is pretty OP, I know, but since none of the players looks to me like making the work at any time to look up the OP-shifting-targets... xD I don't really need to cut into there I think.

@Curmudgeon: I totally agree that point-buy-systems are balanced. At the time you use them depending on Tiers you start buffing classes noone would ever play and that's awesome. But I don't wanna use it for one reason: Rolling abilities is AWESOME. It is a great part of DnD to me and many players I know to roll their individual attributes and think about how to place them best, ending up in discussions if the guy with 18/18/14/8/6/4 or the 13-16-overall-guy has a virtually larger... you know.

To the Core-Only-Discussion: It's so lol. I could laugh all day whenever I read this idea, that I can agree with you. I may optimize on myself a bit and do this from time to time and core only does not help a bit, it's just a kick in the face to everyone ever found a favored class, feat or spell OUTSIDE the core books (good example: Warlock). Also I can't agree with people arguing first about how imba spellcasters are and banning tome of battle at the same time.

Now my improved list of bans (think these are things noone really need):
Banned:
Shivering Touch (Frostburn 104): I totaly agree, thanks for pointing the spell out (what drunken kobold enveloped this spell o.O)
Leadership (PHB): 100% agree with Asheram, RP > Leadership for cohorts
Traits (UA): too much specialisation
Flaws (UA): obv.
Nymph's Kiss (BoED): much too powerful
Truenamer (ToM): can be either really really sucky or hard to OP. Just a class with a good idea and bad bad balancing

[Curmudgeon]

See, to me this is just backwards. Like Togo said, the way to prevent the kind of silliness the OP described is to start with the basics and then only allow what you want, not say "everything is fair game except these things I specifically banned". If you start with your boundries, e.g. SRD (with the obvious gamebreakers banned or modified) + books X and Y, then it's the player's responsibility to convince the DM that it won't harm the game if they want to do something outside those parameters.
What benefit, other than ease of control by the DM, do you get out of restricting player choices in this fashion? I regularly play Rogues. I do this because I like the options the class offers both in character creation and in game play (where it's extremely rare for the character to have nothing to offer, compared to many who just walk along until combat starts), and I'm consciously choosing a lower-power starting point to avoid dominating most games. But before the Rogue gets into the teen levels I've typically used a couple of dozen books. I don't want to have to beg for special treatment three times every level; that strikes me as both aggravating and absurd.

Shutting down choices based on books is what strikes me as backwards, because you're starting with the biggest chunk of game-breaking material in the core rules. Allowing spellcasters full access to Polymorph shenanigans and restricting Complete Scoundrel (for example) is ludicrous.

[Tael]

WTF no Multiclass penalties? Why? I mean, Favored Class: any should not be nerfed imo.
1: Humans are already almost always one of the best races for everything.
2: Seriously?!? You think multiclassing penalties are a good idea? Why is this?




Can u link that opposed system please? (or say book & page, but i don't remember reading some alternate diplo-system in a book...)
What's so OP about Kender? (the luck on saves is also a feat or a racial bonus, the defacto -2 to abilities is a flaw too and immune to fear... not much better than PHB-races to me)

The Giant's Diplo fix is on this very site, right in the gaming section. You can't miss it.

Kenders have possible the worst written fluff of possibly anything in existence. The race is mechanically fine.


Also, I don't think Metamagic Reduction is overpowered per se. One example:
A friend of mine played an awesome Fighter 12/Wizard 8 at Neverwinternights

Stopped reading. Please, not only fighter 12/wiz 8, but in NWN no less? I don't see how this could apply to any discussion of mechanical balance.


Other things in your post:
Of course it depends on how smart your players are, but DMM is one of the most easily abusable things ever.
Same with Wildshape and Polymorph.

Really, just tell your players not to be ****s.

[Curmudgeon]

1: Humans are already almost always one of the best races for everything.
2: Seriously?!? You think multiclassing penalties are a good idea? Why is this?
Multiclassiing penalties are intended to restrict the power of combinations of races and classes. As Tr011 pointed out, removing restrictions based on race means you're going to be devaluing some race choices, and it's not just Humans that have class flexibility as important racial features. If you want to remove multiclassing penalties then you're going to be hitting Half-Elves particularly hard. What's your justification for that?

[Etrivar]

I agree with what appears to be the overall consensus of the thread: discuss it with him.

If he is a reasonable player, he will scale it back a little bit (or, significantly as would be the case) so as not to make the rest of the party feel useless.

If he is unreasonable, and insists on playing it, then assume that he is looking to play hard core and throw the book at him. The monster manual being the book in question. If he wants to play high power, give him high power. Make sure every monster focuses on him for every encounter, and the monsters are much more powerful than they should be.

The nail that sticks out...

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I think trying to make D&D mechanically balanced is a losing proposition, at least so far as "Make monks as good as wizards" goes.

In the end, the game's gonna be balanced for how much time each player puts into their character, how much research they're willing to do, etc. You can impose whatever restrictions you want, but that's still going to be the case, unless you actually make them play from a preset list of characters (i.e., 4th E).

The good news is that the game works well even when not balanced, so long as everyone's at least playing the same game. Most of the enjoyment comes from the roleplaying and the socialization, not the number of points your character wracks up.

Here's one proposed balance mechanic, sort of: all spells and resources are available, but if you want one from the non-core books, you have to explain how you got it. Want a spell from Sandstorm? Those are only known in the wastes, your character needs to have visited there (or something. Want a spell from the Book of Vile Darkness? Your character was once with a party that killed a particularly sadistic necromancer, and was both revolted and intrigued by what he learned.

It doesn't limit a player's ability to build interesting and varied characters at all, but it does do one important thing- players who wish to make powerful
characters also have to consider the personality and backstory of their characters, not just their mechanics- which will make them better and more interesting roleplayers, and more invested in the game (and thus less likely to start setting fires as soon as they get bored playing god.)

As for making wizards a 15-point buy... no offense, but you're insane. 5 points to not be outright catatonic (or dead) leaves you incapable of casting 1st level spells. If you're going to that, just ban wizards. Or, y'know, expect a lot of Monk 1/ Wizard 19 characters.

EDIT: Er... apparently I don't understand pointbuys. Apologies and, for the record, I no longer consider you insane. :P

Just mildly sadistic towards wizards.

[Coidzor]

Multiclassiing penalties are intended to restrict the power of combinations of races and classes. As Tr011 pointed out, removing restrictions based on race means you're going to be devaluing some race choices, and it's not just Humans that have class flexibility as important racial features. If you want to remove multiclassing penalties then you're going to be hitting Half-Elves particularly hard. What's your justification for that?

...People would willingly play Half-Elves for something other than Diplomancer? :smallconfused: They don't offer anything other than that, really.

If the race needs multiclassing penalties to stand, then it was never really standing to begin with.

[Curmudgeon]

...People would willingly play Half-Elves for something other than Diplomancer? :smallconfused: They don't offer anything other than that, really.
Half-Elf with Human Heritage will let you combine Human-only and Elf-only options. Like Elf Dilettante (+1 bonus on all untrained skill checks) and Able Learner (cross-class skills cost 1 point per rank). And only Half-Elves can take Complementary Insight (skill synergy bonuses improve to +3 instead of +2 for 5 ranks).

[MeeposFire]

Stopped reading. Please, not only fighter 12/wiz 8, but in NWN no less? I don't see how this could apply to any discussion of mechanical balance.



Funny thing about most computer cersions of D&D like neverwinter nights. They are far better balanced in general. Why? Since the game limits wizards and the like t o play as warmages with buffing spells they are brought down in power (you can't use the very best spells that are less mechanically restricted in those games). At the same time warrior mobility is not a problem (most games don't include flying and the like) and they do not restrict the full attack (NWN fighters can full attack right after moving 3.5 fighters can't). Combine the two together and wizards don't dominate so much (easiest way to beat NWN games are immunities with all three belts of DR/20 versus piercing, blunt, and slashing.

Of course none of these apply to table top so you are correct NWN does not really show tabletop D&D balance.

[LordBlades]

Multiclassiing penalties are intended to restrict the power of combinations of races and classes. As Tr011 pointed out, removing restrictions based on race means you're going to be devaluing some race choices, and it's not just Humans that have class flexibility as important racial features. If you want to remove multiclassing penalties then you're going to be hitting Half-Elves particularly hard. What's your justification for that?

It's not like the most powerful builds in this game aren't a simple as full casting class X/PrC Y.

Also, TBH, only a handful of races are worth playing for mechanical reasons (humans/strongheart halflings for feat intensive builds, dwarves and warforged for a long list of awesome racial features, water orcs, things with powerful build, things with outsider type and the like) All the other races (take half-orc for example, or standard halfling or even regular elf barring embrace/shun the dark chaos shenanigans) give very little mechanical incentiveto play them. One would play a half orc because he wants to be half orc, not because half-orc is the best race for the job. Enforcing multiclass penalties hurts these races further.

Also, 90% of the races have core favored classes. Which means that if you plan on doing some multiclass with non core stuff like ToB or Binders, you have to default to human for that.

[Gamer Girl]

I don't ban anything, but I'm a Power DM. And a Status Que DM. So the city guards are 11th paladin half gold dragon celestial minotaurs no matter what level the PC are at the time. The average shop keeper is at least 5th ish level, plus they have 'guardian' items passed down over life times. And so forth.

So most of the 'broken' things won't work the same way they will in a low power 'normal' D&D default world.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

2: Seriously?!? You think multiclassing penalties are a good idea? Why is this?

It encourages people to play conventional race/class combinations. Since most races-- especially core races-- are only mechanically significant in your first couple levels, the old school class restrictions used to be the primary mechanism for determining the flavor of a race; some people still don't like all the Dwarf Wizards and Elf Paladins that have been running around for the past 10 years.

I use different race and multiclass mechanics entirely, but I'm still thinking about giving different races lists of Favored and Restricted classes that would modify their XP tables.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Ok, but as is they don't do that. A Dwarf wizard is no more penalized than a Dwarven Paladin or an Elven Ranger.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't ban anything, but I'm a Power DM. And a Status Que DM. So the city guards are 11th paladin half gold dragon celestial minotaurs no matter what level the PC are at the time. The average shop keeper is at least 5th ish level, plus they have 'guardian' items passed down over life times. And so forth.

So most of the 'broken' things won't work the same way they will in a low power 'normal' D&D default world.

I agree on the static world type...my world does not level up with the PCs. If they attempt to kill the king at level 1, they'll die brutally and horrifically. I also don't really entirely get the world of level 1 commoners some people use. Sure, there's a lot of them in my worlds, but they're not important people. Important people have real classes.


It encourages people to play conventional race/class combinations. Since most races-- especially core races-- are only mechanically significant in your first couple levels, the old school class restrictions used to be the primary mechanism for determining the flavor of a race; some people still don't like all the Dwarf Wizards and Elf Paladins that have been running around for the past 10 years.

I use different race and multiclass mechanics entirely, but I'm still thinking about giving different races lists of Favored and Restricted classes that would modify their XP tables.

This is not the case. First off, PrCs don't count. Secondly, keeping classes within a level of each other doesn't count. Thirdly, favored classes don't count. There are so many ways to avoid them that you have to actually work to construct a situation where they are relevant.

And humans are already powerful enough without the extra help.

Basically, all they do is add unwanted complexity. If someone wants to run a dwarf wizard, the multiclassing rules are going to do jack-all to stop him.

[Tr011]

Basically, all they do is add unwanted complexity. If someone wants to run a dwarf wizard, the multiclassing rules are going to do jack-all to stop him.

Yeah. But first of: You forget that humans are mostly the most common race. If you play some other game like Shadowrun you see a world with a population of 70% humans, 95% nonmagical. The players are 10% human and 80% magical.

So I like the idea to NOT have a group out of a orc, a tiefling with horns and a zombie-minotaur. Having an average of 1 human out of 4 players is Ok imo. And half-elves are imo just good because of their paragon and favored-class: any.

Btw: If you play a Dwarven Wizard 9 you dont have problems with multiclassing. And the +Con is nice. If you play Dwarven Wizard/Archmage, it's ok too. You may also play a Fighter/Wizard/Abjurant Champion. And it's not necessary imo to buff the Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Abjurant Champion guys with more than 2 wizard levels, because it's actually not necessary to keep any possible combination balanced with Human Wizards.

[Bhaakon]

Basically, all they do is add unwanted complexity. If someone wants to run a dwarf wizard, the multiclassing rules are going to do jack-all to stop him.

No, but the DM can, and should. I still remember when 3e came out and I (and everyone in my group) was like "Dwarf Wizards, what is this crap?" If ever a race deserved to be its own class.

[Curmudgeon]

Ok, but as is they don't do that. A Dwarf wizard is no more penalized than a Dwarven Paladin or an Elven Ranger.
That's not the case for the right Elven Ranger, since a Wood Elf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#woodElf) has favored class: Ranger. Which means they're well-suited to be an archer, with a Cleric dip to pick up Point Blank Shot as the granted power of the Elf domain; that won't cause a penalty with Ranger as their favored class.

[SuperFish]

Of course there are Dwarven Wizards. Most people just don't realize, because they all look like every other dwarf, because they all prestige class into Runesmith.

Clearly.

[LordBlades]

No, but the DM can, and should. I still remember when 3e came out and I (and everyone in my group) was like "Dwarf Wizards, what is this crap?" If ever a race deserved to be its own class.


TBH I don't see anything wrong with any race/class combination. If a player has a cool story for a dwarf wizard, why not? And if the player doesn't have a cool story for a dwarf wizard, what makes you think it would be any better for an elf wizard?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Yeeaah... gonna have to side with no race/class restrictions here.

The problem with dictating things for "Flavor" is that players want to add their own content- letting them mix-and-match in unusual ways without getting stomped by the rules is one of the things that gets them more invested.

[Divide by Zero]

I prefer to not punish players for trying unusual concepts. As long as you aren't breaking the game, if it's possible within the setting (for example, not like Dragon Age where dwarves are physically incapable of doing magic) and you can justify it in your backstory, you can play it with no penalties.

[Hazzardevil]

I was once in a game of about 5 of us. I had a charecter concept for an iron golem crusader. DM says no, the fluff isn't right. After trying to convince him with does he want every class to only be played by a certain race and you know wat? He did. He did the same to someone else who wanted an Elan Rogue or something. We then both played the troped, crochety old wizard and dumb fighter. We drove the DM nuts and he finally let us do our charecters, he never forced generic ccharecters on the party again thankfully.

[stainboy]

Personal taste I guess, but I can't blame your DM for banning the iron golem. Or at least, I can't blame your DM for banning this monster. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm) I'm sure your iron golem was probably really a warforged or a half-golem or a maug or something.

DM trolling is fun though. Next time a DM won't let me play a necromancer I'm making my Sparkle Princess Mage. LG female gnome with an entirely rainbow, glitter, or unicorn themed spell list, which means she's completely overpowered. I estimate the DM tolerates it for no more than two encounters.

[Odin the Ignoble]

Here's the big one: never use dice for any part of character development, and adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):
15 Point Buy (This Is Where The Wizard Is.)
22 Point Buy
28 Point Buy
32 Point Buy
40 Point Buy (This Is Where The Monk Is.)
You Might Try 50 Here, But Really: Just Skip Characters This Weak.
This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.[/LIST]

See now I want to play an Aristocrat with 18s in Int, Wis And Cha.

[Grommen]

In general the more you ban. The more your going to have to defend yourself. As said. If someone is hell bent on wrecking your game. They will. My solution for this is a big stick and a small gaming table. :smallbiggrin:

Very few things are out right banned around me. Clereity, and the feat that allows your cleric to have buffs on 24/7, more than one contingency, stupid quirky mechanics that don't belong in the game and we never remember them, and a dude named Eric (you don't need to know why).

Now their are a lot of things I've said no to for one reason of the other. In general though that was to keep everyone on line with each other.

I would not ban Leadership, however I would not make it a requirement if a character found himself in a posisition of leadership. The feat it's self makes for a nice framework to balance a small army. And if you have a small group of players a chohort or two makes for a pretty nice addition. Double edge sword though. It can quickly turn into a quagmire of extra dice rolls, and needless crap. In short, sometimes it works. Most of the time it's a royal pain in the keester. Use in moderation.

[Coidzor]

That's not the case for the right Elven Ranger, since a Wood Elf (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#woodElf) has favored class: Ranger. Which means they're well-suited to be an archer, with a Cleric dip to pick up Point Blank Shot as the granted power of the Elf domain; that won't cause a penalty with Ranger as their favored class.

The word was penalized. And that's not really an argument in favor of them naturally being better archers, that's more of a poor crutch showing how the system can be gamed to give them something that it says they already should have.


No, but the DM can, and should. I still remember when 3e came out and I (and everyone in my group) was like "Dwarf Wizards, what is this crap?" If ever a race deserved to be its own class.

Should? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)

[stainboy]

Here's the big one: never use dice for any part of character development, and adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):
15 Point Buy (This Is Where The Wizard Is.)
22 Point Buy
28 Point Buy
32 Point Buy
40 Point Buy (This Is Where The Monk Is.)
You Might Try 50 Here, But Really: Just Skip Characters This Weak.
This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.

Why not the gestalt option? The tiers are more about versatility than power. Gestalting adds versatility to low tier classes but a pair of 18's really doesn't change much. And that way you have a system that interacts cleanly with multiclassing.

[Curmudgeon]

Why not the gestalt option? The tiers are more about versatility than power.
Firstly, "the gestalt option" hasn't been mentioned previously in this thread, so I don't know which of the various such house rules along this line you're referring to. Secondly, versatility is power. Thirdly, gestalt is about increasing that power, which is moving things in the wrong direction. My point buy house rule is just part of an overall strategy to reduce the power of the higher tier (spellcasting) classes, because the problem is that they can dominate most any encounter; giving other characters more options doesn't change that. Fourthly, while gestalting the lower tier classes ostensibly increases their options equitably, it mostly leads to characters who are limited by feat availability, so you're really only pushing gestalt options which include bonus feats; mixing in classes without bonus feats just leads to feat-starved characters. Fifthly, gestalt is a headache when figuring out player options, especially with prestige classes. Sixthly, all published adventures assume single track characters, so it's work for the DM every single time to crank up the difficulty to compensate for dual track PCs.

In short, gestalt or any other "more power to the noncasters" option doesn't fix the basic problem at all. You've got to reduce the power of top tier classes to make it harder for them to find the the "I Win" spell button for any particular situation.
Gestalting adds versatility to low tier classes but a pair of 18's really doesn't change much. Since you took this 1/4 of my set of house rules out of context and left the other 3/4 unreferenced, and further reduced point buy flexibility to just the chance for "a pair of 18s": no, your narrow snippet of the coherent strategy I suggested really doesn't change that much. :smallsigh:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

One other problem with your limiting spells approach to cutting into mages power- that only effects wizards and archivists, both of whom can be countered in other ways (putting them into unexpected situations, mostly).

Sorcerers, druids, clerics, factotums... they're all still as powerful as ever, even with a 15 point buy.

I'd also say 5X the cost for scrolls is pushing it, at least at mid-levels. At that point, going by WBL, there's no longer *any* point to playing wizard over sorcerer, as the sorcerer sill get more spells known, *and* more spells per day.

[ILM]

Multiclassiing penalties are intended to restrict the power of combinations of races and classes. As Tr011 pointed out, removing restrictions based on race means you're going to be devaluing some race choices, and it's not just Humans that have class flexibility as important racial features. If you want to remove multiclassing penalties then you're going to be hitting Half-Elves particularly hard. What's your justification for that?
I go one further: I generally allow most LA 0 races as pure stat blocks independently from appearance. You want that +2 dex/-2 con but you hate the pointy ears? Fine, you're a human, only you're getting the elf stat block instead of the feat and extra skill point. Conversely, you want to be a dwarf but the stats hurt your concept? Take the human stat block and the shortness. Some really distinctive LA 0 races wouldn't work with this (e.g. Tibbit - too much of a headache to figure out what stays and what goes) and race-specific feats and PrCs still require you to have the appropriate stat-block. Yes, sometimes it grants stuff to a character and it doesn't really make sense (why would your human have darkvision?) but aside from minor fluff issues easily solved with minimal amounts of creativity (he grew up in a cave!) it's nothing game-breaking.
Possibly abusable, but I've really never had a problem with that one so far.

[Tyndmyr]

Why not the gestalt option? The tiers are more about versatility than power. Gestalting adds versatility to low tier classes but a pair of 18's really doesn't change much. And that way you have a system that interacts cleanly with multiclassing.

I'd actually come back into this thread to post this exact thing. Kudos, sir.

Yeah, tiers are more about versatility than flat numbers. Any tier can be optimized to get big numbers in something. So, screwing with the point buy doesn't help them much.

[Divide by Zero]

I'd also say 5X the cost for scrolls is pushing it, at least at mid-levels. At that point, going by WBL, there's no longer *any* point to playing wizard over sorcerer, as the sorcerer sill get more spells known, *and* more spells per day.

Well, wizard still has more PrC options and a better casting stat, at least.

[Cog]

The Wizard has similar spells known anyway - fewer in the lower levels, but more in the higher levels. That makes it close, and Collegiate Wizard doubles it if you want.

[Coidzor]

The main thing I have to wonder is what's so wrong about gishes that you have to stealth ban them with that rules set up, Curmudgeon. :smallconfused:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

The Wizard has similar spells known anyway - fewer in the lower levels, but more in the higher levels. That makes it close, and Collegiate Wizard doubles it if you want.

Yeah, actually, I guess you're right about that.

Still, as a way of limiting tier-one classes... I think there are only two that it actually hits.

[Curmudgeon]

One other problem with your limiting spells approach to cutting into mages power- that only effects wizards and archivists ... Sorcerers, druids, clerics, factotums... they're all still as powerful as ever, even with a 15 point buy.
Gee, I don't think that's the case at all. All of these classes are still affected by the "no metamagic cost reducers" restriction. If the player puts all their points into their character's spellcasting stat they're still limited to a maximum ability score of 17 before racial adjustments, which is less than what lower tier classes can afford; this means their spell DCs are reduced, and they have fewer bonus spells. And if the player makes that choice then they've reduced their character's survivability and flexibility greatly: lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, and fewer hit points and skill points. A spellcaster who can't make a successful ranged touch attack because they've got a penalty, has to spend the start of every combat buffing themselves because a single arrow could kill them, and fails with spells that have saving throws definitely isn't "as powerful as ever".

Let's examine what's probably the best Tier 1 option here: a Druid with 17 WIS, and one other stat boosted to 10. Their spellcasting and Will saves are decent. Figuring out what single other stat to avoid a penalty on is challenging, though. CON affects hit points and Fortitude saves; DEX affects AC, ranged attacks, and Reflex saves; INT affects skill points and essential skills like Spellcraft; STR affects melee attacks and carrying capacity; and CHA is the essential skill for Handle Animal, without which the Druid's pet is just part of the scenery. The Druid has to survive to level 5 before wild shape lets them ignore some of those poor stats for part of the day. They'll be relying on their animal companion (though getting it going will be hit or miss in combat for the first couple of levels) and summoning creatures for combat, and casting non-offensive spells for buffing; that's not much different than if they had higher stats. Meanwhile other party members will have to make the Spellcraft and Knowledge (nature) checks the Druid can't manage, carry the magic items the Druid can't tote without being encumbered, Climb to vantage points the Druid can't reach, and handle the ranged and melee combat jobs the Druid's not up to.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Gee, I don't think that's the case at all. All of these classes are still affected by the "no metamagic cost reducers" restriction. If the player puts all their points into their character's spellcasting stat they're still limited to a maximum ability score of 17 before racial adjustments, which is less than what lower tier classes can afford; this means their spell DCs are reduced, and they have fewer bonus spells. And if the player makes that choice then they've reduced their character's survivability and flexibility greatly: lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, and fewer hit points and skill points. A spellcaster who can't make a successful ranged touch attack because they've got a penalty, has to spend the start of every combat buffing themselves because a single arrow could kill them, and fails with spells that have saving throws definitely isn't "as powerful as ever".

Let's examine what's probably the best Tier 1 option here: a Druid with 17 WIS, and one other stat boosted to 10. Their spellcasting and Will saves are decent. Figuring out what single other stat to avoid a penalty on is challenging, though. CON affects hit points and Fortitude saves; DEX affects AC, ranged attacks, and Reflex saves; INT affects skill points and essential skills like Spellcraft; STR affects melee attacks and carrying capacity; and CHA is the essential skill for Handle Animal, without which the Druid's pet is just part of the scenery. The Druid has to survive to level 5 before wild shape lets them ignore some of those poor stats for part of the day. They'll be relying on their animal companion (though getting it going will be hit or miss in combat for the first couple of levels) and summoning creatures for combat, and casting non-offensive spells for buffing; that's not much different than if they had higher stats. Meanwhile other party members will have to make the Spellcraft and Knowledge (nature) checks the Druid can't manage, carry the magic items the Druid can't tote without being encumbered, Climb to vantage points the Druid can't reach, and handle the ranged and melee combat jobs the Druid's not up to.

The metamagic thing does hit everyone, but this is still far from balanced; a spellcaster can remain an absurdly powerful character without ever offering anyone a save. You're only talking about a -1 on save DC here, compared to a traditional built. Even if you were talking about a -10, the caster would still have buffs, no-save ranged touch attacks, summons, utility magic, item creation, and a whole host of other options.

As for the penalties to other stats- yeah, they'll hurt some, but you still haven't solved the problem you were setting out to solve- casters remain more-or-less as versatile as ever, just slightly more fragile. Ranged touch attacks can still be delivered- even if you assume that other casters had an 18 AC where yours have an 8, there's a single feat that can make up the difference. And, frankly, no good caster should be relying on his agility modifier AC or hitpoints anyway- not with the wealth of spells that can make those things irrelevant.

The only thing you've done that actually knocks any classes from a tier 1 to something lower still only effects wizards and archivists.

[HalfDragonCube]

My DM bans candles of invocation, as anything that provides a spell cheaper than a scroll of it and can be used by anyone is fairly OP.

Also, feats taken for early entry shenanigans may not be retrained as soon as you get into the class, such as using the Earth Spell trick to get into Mystic Theurge for your fourth level.

[Ormur]

I wasn't very deliberate in determining my houserules but I inherited a few from my DM, no massive damage, no muliticlass penalties, fractional bonuses, stabilization at 15+ on a d20, wildshape and polymorph can only be used for creatures they characters know about.

I specifically nerfed teleport because I knew it was difficult making encounters for characters that could be anywhere on the continent at any given moment, I knew because I was that player in another campaign and I'm not as good at spontaneously making encounters as that DM. I made it a teleport circle that you had to have present at both locations before using, making sure they'd have to physically go to any given location first. I also makes it easier to justify why powerful NPC's just don't scry-and-die them.

Other than that I ask the players to pick options and classes somewhat close to each other in power. I reserve the right to ban things or combos but I allow most things and then we have a gentleman's agreement not to break the game. I also don't give NPCs things I wouldn't allow the players to use (although acquiring it might be harder than usual and I've used arguably overpowered feats and spells I know the players won't pick).

So they wouldn't be able to buy candles of invocation, reduce metamagic cost to nothing, pick streamers or ice assassin as a spell, use gate to call infinite numbers of titans or a thought bottle to get more XP.

[stainboy]

Firstly, "the gestalt option" hasn't been mentioned previously in this thread, so I don't know which of the various such house rules along this line you're referring to.

Oh, it's from JaronK's tier thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=7nr41t6b3370utmpomslpkkjk7&topic=1002.msg24721#msg24721) on BG. I thought you got your point buy rule from there because JaronK suggested something very similar, but looking at it again it looks like your numbers are different.


Since you took this 1/4 of my set of house rules out of context and left the other 3/4 unreferenced, and further reduced point buy flexibility to just the chance for "a pair of 18s": no, your narrow snippet of the coherent strategy I suggested really doesn't change that much. :smallsigh:

Ok, your first rule is something most DMs do, and most players voluntarily impose on themselves anyway. No metamagic cost reduction cheese, nothing contentious there.

Your second rule isn't a rule. It's an idea for a set of patch fixes you might like to make in the future. I didn't reference it because there's not really anything to reference. (The one example you included has PCs making Spot checks to see things that aren't necessarily trying to hide from them, which makes no sense, and having to know about animals to wildshape into them, which is RAW already. I figured you hadn't thought it through much and left it alone.)

Your third rule only affects wizards and archivists, plus some serious collateral damage to UMD rogues. And it's not hard to circumvent, unless you're the UMD rogue. Use the Secret Page cheat or steal spellbooks. You'll probably do more damage by starting the game with a show of bad faith (I'm nerfing your class because I don't trust you not to break my game) and essentially challenging the wizard player to show you up.

Your fourth rule doesn't interact well with multiclassing, which means it doesn't work.


In general... no offense, but it sounds like the kind of fixes people come up with from spending more time talking about D&D on the internet than playing it. Incomplete and largely unspecified list of spell nerfs + uneven class nerfs + rules with lots of unintended consequences. You've assumed that 3.5's balance problems are so dire that even an inelegant uneven off-the-cuff fix is better than no fix. You've assumed that your players either actively try to break your game or don't know the system well enough not to break it by accident.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and I wouldn't rail on you for it if you weren't getting defensive. But you're repeating a very common set of mistakes.

[Taelas]

Gee, I don't think that's the case at all. All of these classes are still affected by the "no metamagic cost reducers" restriction. If the player puts all their points into their character's spellcasting stat they're still limited to a maximum ability score of 17 before racial adjustments, which is less than what lower tier classes can afford; this means their spell DCs are reduced, and they have fewer bonus spells. And if the player makes that choice then they've reduced their character's survivability and flexibility greatly: lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, and fewer hit points and skill points. A spellcaster who can't make a successful ranged touch attack because they've got a penalty, has to spend the start of every combat buffing themselves because a single arrow could kill them, and fails with spells that have saving throws definitely isn't "as powerful as ever".
There is no point in going to 17, here. 16 is plenty. Throw the last 5 points in Constitution, and avoid ranged touch attack spells (or grab the feat which lets you cast them with Int modifiers instead), and while you are certainly weakened, your versatility has not really been reduced. You can still pull off all the tricks wizards can pull off with equal-value point buys.


Let's examine what's probably the best Tier 1 option here: a Druid with 17 WIS, and one other stat boosted to 10. Their spellcasting and Will saves are decent. Figuring out what single other stat to avoid a penalty on is challenging, though. CON affects hit points and Fortitude saves; DEX affects AC, ranged attacks, and Reflex saves; INT affects skill points and essential skills like Spellcraft; STR affects melee attacks and carrying capacity; and CHA is the essential skill for Handle Animal, without which the Druid's pet is just part of the scenery. The Druid has to survive to level 5 before wild shape lets them ignore some of those poor stats for part of the day. They'll be relying on their animal companion (though getting it going will be hit or miss in combat for the first couple of levels) and summoning creatures for combat, and casting non-offensive spells for buffing; that's not much different than if they had higher stats. Meanwhile other party members will have to make the Spellcraft and Knowledge (nature) checks the Druid can't manage, carry the magic items the Druid can't tote without being encumbered, Climb to vantage points the Druid can't reach, and handle the ranged and melee combat jobs the Druid's not up to.
Again, 16 is the better choice. 3 points is just not worth the hassle of an uneven stat. Throw 2 points in Constitution to avoid a HP hit, and depending on what you want to focus on (Handle Animal or Spellcraft/Knowledge (nature), or even further hit points) throw the remaining points in the appropriate stat (and don't try to be a combatant; just cast SNAs). You could even get around this by throwing feats at the problem. For instance, if you wanted to improve all three skills, simply put points into Int, and take Skill Focus (Handle Animal). It's a suboptimal feat choice, but you can retrain it once you reach level 5. You get away without a penalty to Spellcraft or Knowledge (nature), and your penalty in Cha is more than made up by the feat. Once you can Wildshape, you don't have to look back.

You have weakened them some, but it is not enough to even bring them down a tier.

[Curmudgeon]

The one example you included has PCs making Spot checks to see things that aren't necessarily trying to hide from them, which makes no sense
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that's directly from the rules in the Player's Handbook. From Table 4–3: Difficulty Class Examples on page 64:

{table=head] Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)[/table]

Also, it seems you've overlooked an important part of the skill description:
Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it. If you fail your Spot check to notice a creature in plain sight, it's obviously difficult for you to see, isn't it?

, and having to know about animals to wildshape into them, which is RAW already.
I would appreciate it if you would read my posts a bit more carefully before responding to them. I started with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10921102&postcount=4) "Scrutinize individual spells" and referenced the Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange line for this rule, pointing out that there's no knowledge of creature types built into those spells. I never mentioned Wild Shape in that context at all.

[stainboy]

DC 0 Spot check? Come on.

People are just trying to help. It's completely OK to post a rough draft of some house rules and have them turn out not to be that great. Caster supremacy is a hard problem, nobody expects you to come up with a good fix all on your own in 15 minutes.

[Curmudgeon]

DC 0 Spot check? Come on.
That's for a Large creature, within 10'. A Small creature (2 +4 increments to the DC for size) at 100' (-10 penalty for distance) is effectively DC 18. And then there's this:
Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. If you fail your Spot check the first time you have line of sight to a creature, you cannot notice it without succeeding on a move action Spot recheck.

This isn't house rule territory; it's all right there in the Player's Handbook.

[Aricandor]

To answer the question thread question, what's necessary to houserule is things that are breaking your game. I'd have spent weeks trawling through spell lists to patch up offenders, if it wasn't for the fact my players a) don't play spellcasters much and b) when they do, they haven't been going for broken things, deliberately or not. The one thing I've ever had to put a stop to was players going for Hulking Hurler and Beholder Mage shenanigans.

What's senseless is to put in rules that fix what isn't broken, and to houserule things that aren't going to come up in play.
We've all probably seen the stories from (or even been ourselves) perplexed players on the forums who suffer under DMs who think that monks or rogues are brutally overpowered, putting in unnecessary houserules like "sneak attack is 1/round".
Personally I've also wasted a lot of time houseruling polymorph spells, only to realise none of my players have any interest in them whatsoever.

[stainboy]

And then there's this: If you fail your Spot check the first time you have line of sight to a creature, you cannot notice it without succeeding on a move action Spot recheck.

This isn't house rule territory; it's all right there in the Player's Handbook.

That's kinda funny. "Something" isn't a game term though. It might be a creature, or a creature under a particular set of conditions. For example, a hobbit 100' away is something. The next turn the same hobbit 20' away and on fire might be a different "something."

[ericgrau]

I agree with the comments that being civil is the best solution. Many people haven't even heard of the broken tricks that crop up online, and wouldn't use them anyway. Likewise handling power creep in splat-books is simplest if done on a case by case basis. Especially since those depends on your group's power level and thus any concrete house rules might vary from group to group; thus even if you made a set of house rules you'd have to write them on your own.

Banning polymorph and leadership is a simple solution though mainly because those two are so darn complicated and non-essential to the game. It's kind of a "those can be made to work, but maybe you don't want to bother with all the trouble" type situation.

On the tangent ya spot checks are way over-used in situations where they are totally unnecessary. Or the DC is zero and natural 1's don't fail on skill checks so rolling is usually pointless. I like the rule of thumb which is also near the top of the spot rules: if 90% of your spot checks aren't being made against something which is actively hiding you're doing something wrong. And by RAW hiding requires cover or concealment and is done as part of movement; i.e., the monster must actually plan on it. Considering the same DMs don't tend to make sneaky monsters, it is possible that there are entire campaigns where spot is by RAW the most useless skill there is and yet checks are called for the most.

[Tr011]

Banning polymorph and leadership is a simple solution though mainly because those two are so darn complicated and non-essential to the game. It's kind of a "those can be made to work, but maybe you don't want to bother with all the trouble" type situation.

I know that polymorph is way overpowered by RAW and very easy to abuse, but just banning would be kinda too much... Everyone knows (or should know) the scene where 'The Shadow' is morphed into an ogre to get slaughtered by the Barbarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4qBjQ2YWnw). DnD would be also a bit less fun without evil sorcerers who turn commoners into frogs.

Maybe making a list of allowed targets for polymorph would fix the problem (still beeing able to fly as a raven but not too OP throu some other forms).