what do you ban?

[big teej]

in a similiar vein to some of my recent threads.

when you sit behind the DM screen. what do you ban up front?

for me
disjunction
any source I do not possess in hardcopy

additional: proscribed works
the book of vile darkness
the book of exalted deeds

a ban recently lifted: wizards

recent bans:
Soulborn
Monk
Soulknife

these three classes have been replaced (entirely) with homebrew versions. and may not be used as written in the books.

caveat: I reserve the right to bring the banhammer/nerfhammer down on anything, at any time, for any reason.

amendum: "please refrain from shenanigans, see above"

anywho, what do you ban?

[Morph Bark]

I ban prepared casters.

That's all.

[Rogue Shadows]

Usually I make up a list of cleared sources and ban everything outside of that unless it's run past me, but everything within is allowed

A typical list of allowed material might look like...
- PHB, DMG, MM
- Eberron CS
- Races of Eberron
- Expanded Psionics Handbook
- Secrets of Xen'drik
- City of Stormreach
- Campaign Pamphlet (which is a document I write up for every campaign containing any notes on changes to the system, new items, etc).

[WinWin]

I ban players, not books. You would be surprised how well that prevents issues at the table.

[Greenish]

Usually I make up a list of cleared sources and ban everything outside of that unless it's run past me, but everything within is allowed

A typical list of allowed material might look like...
- PHB, DMG, MM
- Eberron CS
- Races of Eberron
- Expanded Psionics Handbook
- Secrets of Xen'drik
- City of Stormreach
- Campaign Pamphlet (which is a document I write up for every campaign containing any notes on changes to the system, new items, etc).No PGtE? EPH but SoX instead of SoS? :smalltongue:

[Tvtyrant]

No setting stuff unless everyone in the group wants it.

[big teej]

I ban players, not books. You would be surprised how well that prevents issues at the table.

I tend to neglect to inform them of the formation of a new group... I don't think I've ever had to ban a player....

although there is one boy that if he attempts to return to my table he will be turned away until either he gets the message or I get irritated and tell him up front he's not welcome.


also, I just remembered 2 more things I ban
rape jokes and real world political/religious discussion will get you thrown out of my group so fast it ain't funny.

[Rogue Shadows]

No PGtE? EPH but SoX instead of SoS? :smalltongue:

Well, the above is what I was going to allow for a Xen'drik campaign. The only reason I allowed the EPH at all was because Eberron just wouldn't feel right without psionics.

[Crasical]

I don't think I've ever banned anything.

[Drinzor]

vows from BoED

Solar bow later on.

Artificer mostly because my players dont want it ;)

depending on the adv. I ban what would make NO sense

[0nimaru]

All of Faerun.

I'd say it's more general policy than a ban, but suggesting firmly that players move to a different, but similar, class if it'll work out better for everybody happens fairly often. By necessity the first option is soft-banned so they don't just multi-class immediately back to it.

I usually have to talk with any prep-casters and go over a list of spells I won't tolerate, based on the relative power level of the group (celerity, polymorph, etc.)

[NichG]

Wings of Cover, overly generous readings of Wish, Sadism/Masochism, d2 Crusader, Find the Path, Starmantle, Immunity-to-damage tricks (Immune to Nonlethal + Regeneration, etc), and a few other tricks like that.

[Commoner_Bane]

"Orb of X" spells from Spell Compendium/Complete Arcane
Celerity
Power Word Pain (probably)
BoVD
BoED

All Psionics
Item Sets (and usually Relics) from the MIC
Most slot-less Magic Items
All Third-Party publishings


Other things can be negotiated upon. Those will not be.

[WinWin]

I tend to neglect to inform them of the formation of a new group... I don't think I've ever had to ban a player....


Antisocial behaviour. Jibes and competitiveness are tolerated to a point, but not when they cause others not to have a good time. I don't care if people turn up to a game drunk or under the influence of something, so long as they are able to contribute. As for game rules, campaign setting material from differing sources is generally not acceptable, nor is using more than half a dozen sourcebooks to put the basics of your character together.

I have only had to ban a few people. One was physically violent with another player. Another had severe emotional problems that needed professional/chemical intervention. Another wanted to play a beholder mage and would not take no for an answer...Plus he was a seriously creepy guy that basically refused to interact with anyone but the DM (me).

Couple of others, but those are the major problem players that I point out to new players (if asked).

[Howler Dagger]

I ban Natural Spell. Sometimes druids and/or wizards in general. I usually ban material from books i dont have.

[Curmudgeon]

I ban the following:

gestalt characters
generic classes
bloodline levels (mostly because nobody can agree how they work)
dice rolling for any part of character development
material not sanctioned for D&D by WotC
Mostly I'm a stickler for the rules, and I won't let people pull spell power shenanigans; spells do what's stated in their description, and never more than that. So "solid" in Shatter means "rigid, not flexible" rather than the inappropriately anachronistic chemical definition "neither liquid nor gas". Enlarge Person increases character gear weight 8x, and the character is required to follow the encumbrance rules (usually that means they're slowed down) as a consequence. Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts. Nondetection does have a chance to foil True Seeing and See Invisibility, because these are divination spells that detect, visually. Telekinesis lets you use Violent Thrust to hurl weapons, but does not give you proficiency with these weapons, make melee weapons other than improvised for throwing, or change weapon range increments. Darkness does create shadowy light in a previously pitch black area, despite the spell name making that seem odd. The Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange chain doesn't incorporate any Monster Manuals in the spell descriptions, so players can only assume forms their characters have encountered and identified (with the required Knowledge checks).

[Tvtyrant]

rather than the inappropriately anachronistic chemical definition "neither liquid nor gas".

I lol'd. Because D&D is a form of anachronism see, and....

[Vemynal]

to point: I won't ban anything

an example; above someone said the d2 Crusader. They try that **** and DM word of god "Your weapon breaks after the first hit"

I also reserve the right that if players get cheesy, I will get cheesy on those players.

example:
Next time one of them wanders off to buy magic items (or w/e) by themselves?

Enemy minions teleport in, scry and die the character

If this is a problem, I will cut off and animate dead the characters head. And have the bad guys take the rest of the body with them to be completely destroyed later.



Thankfully I have actually never had to do any of this before hand, its like the Presidents veto power. The threat of it (is supposed to) keep things from getting out of hand.

And if something is getting *slightly* out of hand, or if I allowed something I want to take back. I'll just talk to the player and I haven't had an issue yet

[Greenish]

Next time one of them wanders off to buy magic items (or w/e) by themselves?How is that cheesy? :smallconfused:

[Curmudgeon]

I lol'd. Because D&D is a form of anachronism see, and....
Hey, you laugh, but alchemists of the Medieval era that D&D attempts (more or less) to emulate were pretty sure that ice and liquid water were the same stuff, but were still debating the nature of steam. Using modern chemical definitions is just way out of line, especially because nobody tries to do that when it would diminish their power.


I also reserve the right that if players get cheesy, I will get cheesy on those players.

example:
Next time one of them wanders off to buy magic items (or w/e) by themselves?

Enemy minions teleport in, scry and die the character
How would the enemy minions know to do that? Wouldn't they need to be scrying on particular characters in the first place to know that they're alone? And how would they have the character knowledge required for Scrying in the first place? It seems to me you're breaking all sorts of rules here. What if the character is just tired of the disadvantages of being with a loud, easily detected bunch, and thinks it would be a good idea to do some stealthy solo scouting for a while? Are you going to exact revenge on the character because the player was too smart to ride on your railroad?

[Arundel]

BoEF
Everything else is case by case.

[Vangor]

Try not to ban anything. Players who attempt ridiculousness learn quickly a basic concept of d&d is you cannot win, and as a corollary of this a being always exists which is stronger than you. Have had a couple attempts to bring in clearly online lifted builds meant to break the game, and I just tell them, "Congratulations, you are beating the campaign. You do that, and we'll be over here actually playing the game."

[Talya]

All official D&D 3.x books (and authorized dragon magazine material) is allowed, so long as it does not conflict with the setting. Cheese is banned on an individual basis.

[big teej]

I forgot one

"none of that cleric of a cause crap"

[King Atticus]

"none of that cleric of a cause crap"

RIGHT?!? Yeah, I hate that, it makes no sense at all.

[Rogue Shadows]

RIGHT?!? Yeah, I hate that, it makes no sense at all.

Eh? What don't you like about it?

[137beth]

The core polymorph line. Or anything else that doesn't make sense...

[Curmudgeon]

I forgot one

"none of that cleric of a cause crap"
Why is that? Isn't that basically what Confucianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism) is?

[Vemynal]

It seems to me you're breaking all sorts of rules here

to be quite frank yes, exactly. and no i don't care. If the end result fixes the problem then DM "word of god" works fine by me


edit- ah! I see where you guys are getting confused. I'm not killing the character because he separated from the party. Hell, all my games are sandbox anyways.

What I meant was that if your character pulls out some insane infinite wish loop or d2 crusader damage loop then I will (in game) take a base ball bat to said character. Rules be damned.

[big teej]

the idea that one's belief in a philosophy was enough to generate divine power is ludicrous to me.

some like to make the argument that a cleric's belief in the diety serves the same purpose.

I disagree.

the fact we have clerics makes the EXISTENCE of dieties a foregone conclusion, "belief" adds nothing.

dedication and worship are what matter.

ergo, one's dedication and worship of your chosen diety are rewarded with the ability to channel that diety's might in the form of spells.

the idea that one's dedication and worship to an ideal allows these powers to arise from the individual itself, just doesn't jive with me at all.

it's the same reason the dragon shaman is likely going to end up being a banned class for me, as it's fluff doesn't support it's crunchyness at. all.

people tried to make the "belief" argument, but that (again) breaks down as soon as we start talking about my game.

their argument essentially consisted of "belief is everything in dnd"

and my counterargument was "bubkis, this means a fighter could fly by beliveing hard enough"

to which they responded with "right, and he represents this by taking a level in say... sorcerer/cleric/psion/whatever."
something with the mechanical ability to fly.

at which point it breaks down.
1) a fighter who multi-classes is no longer a fighter, he's a fighter/somethingelse
2) last time I checked, there is NOTHING that maintains a d10 hit die, whilst giving you access to things like flight. so instead of becoming "stronger" via belief, the individual has grown more fragile.

which reminds me.

banned classes: dragon shaman*

*it's a soft ban. if someone REEEEEAALLY wants to play it, I'll let em have it. but.... that's likely to change in the future.

[Rogue Shadows]

the idea that one's belief in a philosophy was enough to generate divine power is ludicrous to me.

some like to make the argument that a cleric's belief in the diety serves the same purpose.

I disagree.

the fact we have clerics makes the EXISTENCE of dieties a foregone conclusion, "belief" adds nothing.

dedication and worship are what matter.

So...religions along the line of Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism or whatever it was Plato was cooking up are right out in your games, then? Or at least clerics of those faiths are.

[Calmar]

I ban rope trick. The game is about adventure, not about cowering in some safe little hiding-place.

[Soranar]

Depends, with newbies it's not necessary to ban much of anything (Most high tier classes are terrible in the wrong hands).

With medium optimizers, ban divine metamagic, natural spell, contingencies and you're usually ok.

With my old group though? The only way to keep things interesting was to ban all tier 1 and 2 classes + a few prestige classes that essientially make you tier 1 (Ur-Priest, Shadowcraft mage , etc.).

Note: Leadership is always banned.

[Yorrin]

I don't ban books, I ban prestige classes. So Tainted Scholar, Hulking Hurler, Shadowcraft Mage, Beholder Mage, Incantatrix, Cancer Mage, etc.

[Vizzerdrix]

I ban the PHB (Save for feats and equipment). It's worked splendidly so far.

[Elric VIII]

the idea that one's belief in a philosophy was enough to generate divine power is ludicrous to me.

some like to make the argument that a cleric's belief in the diety serves the same purpose.

I disagree.

the fact we have clerics makes the EXISTENCE of dieties a foregone conclusion, "belief" adds nothing.

dedication and worship are what matter.

ergo, one's dedication and worship of your chosen diety are rewarded with the ability to channel that diety's might in the form of spells.

the idea that one's dedication and worship to an ideal allows these powers to arise from the individual itself, just doesn't jive with me at all.

it's the same reason the dragon shaman is likely going to end up being a banned class for me, as it's fluff doesn't support it's crunchyness at. all.


Isn't this how Spirit Shamen, Shugenja, and Druids work?



people tried to make the "belief" argument, but that (again) breaks down as soon as we start talking about my game.

their argument essentially consisted of "belief is everything in dnd"

and my counterargument was "bubkis, this means a fighter could fly by beliveing hard enough"

to which they responded with "right, and he represents this by taking a level in say... sorcerer/cleric/psion/whatever."
something with the mechanical ability to fly.

at which point it breaks down.
1) a fighter who multi-classes is no longer a fighter, he's a fighter/somethingelse
2) last time I checked, there is NOTHING that maintains a d10 hit die, whilst giving you access to things like flight. so instead of becoming "stronger" via belief, the individual has grown more fragile.

The Paladin would like to have a word with you.


Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough.

It has full BAB and d10 HD and gains power from belief.




I ban rope trick. The game is about adventure, not about cowering in some safe little hiding-place.

This, sort of.

I don't outright ban this form of magic, but I talk to my players about using them too much and how it either forces me to have enemies prepare for it or makes the game too easy. I try to form a gentlemans' agreement that they will only use it when it is really needed, otherwise I give them the option of bein able to acquire 1-2scrolls of it/level, for emerencies, but not letting them actually learn the spell.

[druid91]

the idea that one's belief in a philosophy was enough to generate divine power is ludicrous to me.

some like to make the argument that a cleric's belief in the diety serves the same purpose.

I disagree.

the fact we have clerics makes the EXISTENCE of dieties a foregone conclusion, "belief" adds nothing.

dedication and worship are what matter.

ergo, one's dedication and worship of your chosen diety are rewarded with the ability to channel that diety's might in the form of spells.

the idea that one's dedication and worship to an ideal allows these powers to arise from the individual itself, just doesn't jive with me at all.

it's the same reason the dragon shaman is likely going to end up being a banned class for me, as it's fluff doesn't support it's crunchyness at. all.

people tried to make the "belief" argument, but that (again) breaks down as soon as we start talking about my game.

their argument essentially consisted of "belief is everything in dnd"

and my counterargument was "bubkis, this means a fighter could fly by beliveing hard enough"

to which they responded with "right, and he represents this by taking a level in say... sorcerer/cleric/psion/whatever."
something with the mechanical ability to fly.

at which point it breaks down.
1) a fighter who multi-classes is no longer a fighter, he's a fighter/somethingelse
2) last time I checked, there is NOTHING that maintains a d10 hit die, whilst giving you access to things like flight. so instead of becoming "stronger" via belief, the individual has grown more fragile.

which reminds me.

banned classes: dragon shaman*

*it's a soft ban. if someone REEEEEAALLY wants to play it, I'll let em have it. but.... that's likely to change in the future.

Belief is everything. It's the belief that the gods are stronger than mortals that makes them so strong. It's the worship and belief in the gods as a divine entity that makes them so in D&D.

And no a fighter simply can't muster enough belief to do that he knows, deep down in his heart he can't fly if he had that same power of belief he wouldn't be a fighter to start with. Clerics of a cause are exceptional in their faith and ability to believe.

Personally I've always thought of clerics of a cause as potential gods. They have an innate belief in themself and their cause. It is part of their very souls, and they have the potential but only rarely completely fulfill that potential.

[big teej]

oooh leadership, that reminds me.

I have a "soft-ban" on that.
if someone comes to me and says "I want to take leadership" I say back to them "why?"

the more precise and defined their answer, the more open I am to it.

for instance, I have 3 or 4 characters off the top of my head that have (or plan to have) leadership.

Knight - I want a herald and some flunkies, ergo, leadership. the herald is a simple bard who announces my presence and stuff. the followers serve as things like "shield-carrier", "cook", "blacksmith" etc. etc.

Orc Paragon/barbarian - I want to start an orc horde. my cohort is my second in command, and my followers are the mook orcs

Rogue - I want to be in charge of a thieves guild... see a pattern here?


all of the above are precisely defined and limited.
all of the above would be allowed, with the caveat of "if you deviate from this, I dismantle your opperation"

I also tend to disallow full-caster cohorts. unless their role/purpose has been defined and restricted enough to my liking.

I.E. "mozspax the wizard, my advisor on matters magical, who spends 90% of his time in his tower and the libraries of the great city of Thale"
and his role is "hey, we don't know jack about this, lets ask mozy"



So...religions along the line of Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism or whatever it was Plato was cooking up are right out in your games, then? Or at least clerics of those faiths are.

correct.

[Coidzor]

it's the same reason the dragon shaman is likely going to end up being a banned class for me, as it's fluff doesn't support it's crunchyness at. all.

Not that it's weaksauce and a trap? Huh...


I.E. "mozspax the wizard, my advisor on matters magical, who spends 90% of his time in his tower and the libraries of the great city of Thale"
and his role is "hey, we don't know jack about this, lets ask mozy"

And you make them pay a feat for an NPC contact to ask to make knowledge rolls for them. :smallamused: That's just deliciously wicked.

[mabriss lethe]

After the last game I ran, I'm severely restricting Planar Travel and a lot of teleport options (short range teleportation is exempt). I'm not going to ban them outright, but make them difficult, time consuming affairs that aren't all that practical for things like scry 'n die shenanigans or hopping to another plane of existence when the plot thickens on the prime material plane. The group I gamed for got a little too fond of plane shifting away from even the most meager plot-development and then I'd have to build a whole new story/world from scratch.

[tanderson11]

-snip-
Yeah, I ban all the classes that have "fluff" that doesn't "jive" with me well, I mean, seriously.

My all fighter games are awesome!

[big teej]

Isn't this how Spirit Shamen, Shugenja, and Druids work?

The Paladin would like to have a word with you.

It has full BAB and d10 HD and gains power from belief.



well, the first 2 haven't seen play in my game, and are thus a non-issue at this juncture (for me at lest)

and no, nature is a tangilbe, existing thing with power (elementals for instance) so they're drawing upon an actual powersource. and to be perfectly honest, I'm seriously considering making them just worship a diety as well, to avoid confusion.

the paladin worships a diety. see cleric.



Belief is everything. It's the belief that the gods are stronger than mortals that makes them so strong. It's the worship and belief in the gods as a divine entity that makes them so in D&D.

And no a fighter simply can't muster enough belief to do that he knows, deep down in his heart he can't fly if he had that same power of belief he wouldn't be a fighter to start with. Clerics of a cause are exceptional in their faith and ability to believe.

Personally I've always thought of clerics of a cause as potential gods. They have an innate belief in themself and their cause. It is part of their very souls, and they have the potential but only rarely completely fulfill that potential.

you're absolutely correct, and whenver you sit behind the screen, I encourage you to run it this way.

that's your perogative as a dungeon master, just as it is mine to say "no, it's not"



I'd like to state something at this point for the record.

I have at no point stated the way I do it is "right" or "correct" or "better"
it's simply how I do it. I've played in games where people do it compeletly differently and that's fine


Not that it's weaksauce and a trap? Huh...



And you make them pay a feat for an NPC contact to ask to make knowledge rolls for them. :smallamused: That's just deliciously wicked.

-shh- they haven't noticed yet.

on a more serious note.

okay... that was a bad example :smalltongue:

I'd like to instead direct you to the knight, rogue, and orc examples.

[JaronK]

I tend to pick a power level and stick with it, which usually means I ban T1 and T2 classes for PCs. Sometimes I have very specific requirements for certain games, like an all ninja game where all the builds must be arguably ninja themed (the player can make a good argument for it) and those tend to ban a lot of things outside that theme.

One time I made an all Commoner game. That was REALLY fun.

JaronK

[big teej]

bloody ninjas


I'd actually love to play an all fighter game, that sounds interesting to me. :smallbiggrin:

[Elric VIII]

the paladin worships a diety. see cleric.

That quote I made, just above the text your quoted: in the Paladin description. It was a quote from the PHB.

Paladins do not need to worship a diety. That is how the class works. Their dedication to a cause grants them power; the diety is allowed, but not necessary.


and no, nature is a tangilbe, existing thing with power (elementals for instance) so they're drawing upon an actual powersource. and to be perfectly honest, I'm seriously considering making them just worship a diety as well, to avoid confusion.

Aren't the various alignment-based planes and their agendas tangible as well?

[Mercenary Pen]

Well, I haven't run 3.5 myself, but I'm sorely tempted to ban 8th and 9th level spells and fiddle with the levels at which fullcasters get their spells- though I would likewise take those spells/powers/SLA's etc. away from their opponents.

I do however always make it clear (on my usual system, 4e) that all house rules apply to me as much as they do to the players- I've never known that not to head off complaints about not letting them have nice stuff.

[Ernir]

I don't ban stuff categorically. Especially not by the categories that are sourcebooks.

I do, however, expect to be peripherally involved in the character creation process, and reserve the right to say stuff like "we need to tone that down" and "are you sure you want to go there?" when certain things are brought up.

This wouldn't work if I were trying to create a streamlined way to have K players create N characters over an indefinite timespan, but I don't have to do that.

[Zale]

I don't see how a thread like this could possibly dissolve into a fifty page argument. :smalltongue:

Oh well, I guess I'll watch on in a lawn chair with some popcorn.

[big teej]

That quote I made, just above the text your quoted: in the Paladin description. It was a quote from the PHB.

Paladins do not need to worship a diety. That is how the class works. Their dedication to a cause grants them power; the diety is allowed, but not necessary.



Aren't the various alignment-based planes and their agendas tangible as well?

it sure is. and I've decided (as is my perogative) to ignore that particular line.

nope, they're not present on the prime material. if it'd make you feel better, you can attach the same diety clause to druids though, since I am considering that.



I don't see how a thread like this could possibly dissolve into a fifty page argument. :smalltongue:

Oh well, I guess I'll watch on in a lawn chair with some popcorn.

well, as a DM who constantly seeks to better himself.

and as a DM who plans on creating his own setting eventually.

I feel having a few 50 page discussions is an okay thing (if not something to be actively sought after)

after all, if something devolves into a 50 page discussion, depending on how much derailment ensues, at the end of the thread, one should have a fairly good idea of the possibilities on that particular issue.

so every now and again I do try to provoke a huge discussion.

however, this wasn't one of them, I was genuienly curious what other people ban and why.

other people are apt to notice things that I don't, and other people have gamed longer than I have, and so are able to make calls based on greater experience.

[Quietus]

Nothing. I do, however, give my players guidelines for the type of game I'm trying to run - anything from a simple "Mid power level guys, don't make the tippyverse" to "This is a detailed rundown of the feel I'm trying to get for this setting. Please make characters who would be heroic, but not godlike".

You give a player a guideline, they tend to work with that and make something they'll enjoy. Give a player a list of banned items, and you'll - at least some of the time - have to deal with them asking for things from that, or whining that they can't have it. It's a matter of attention. I direct the player's attention to what I want to see, rather than pointing it at what I don't want to see.

[Elric VIII]

it sure is. and I've decided (as is my perogative) to ignore that particular line.

Then isn't the argument against Clerics of a belief, that consistes of "there is a lack of existence of a Fighter that derives power from belief," a problem created by yourself?

I'm not saying that your decisions on DMing are wrong, it just seems that you are justifying them with circular logic.



nope, they're not present on the prime material. if it'd make you feel better, you can attach the same diety clause to druids though, since I am considering that.

This is prefectly reasonable, but would you at least allow a Cleric dedicated to nature?

[LaughingRogue]

I ban: player's who decide that they need an ego trip by trying to slip something past me that they know will completely break the game.

My player's generally ask me "Is X ok" for just about all walks of life (items, classes, prestiges) and I go on case by case for what the power level of the game is supposed to be...in one game something might be okay that in another game it is just too powerful for what that specific game is made for.

[Shadowknight12]

I ban people, not sources/rules/books/mechanics/concepts/anything of the sort. If I can't trust you with something broken, I don't want to play with you. Period.

[Greenish]

I'd actually love to play an all fighter game, that sounds interesting to me. :smallbiggrin:All fighters? Booooring. Gimme all monks. :smalltongue:

As for saying that in your setting, all divine power comes from gods, well, that's perfectly in line with what DMs are expected to do. It's internally consistent and doesn't limit players' choice any more than telling them lazerguns don't exist in your setting when they try to get one.

[BinaryMage]

I ban people, not sources/rules/books/mechanics/concepts/anything of the sort. If I can't trust you with something broken, I don't want to play with you. Period.

Honestly, I think banning things is not ever going to solve your problems. The guy who chain-gates solars will find a way to break the game no matter how many sources you ban. Working with your group is the only way to do it. And even as a player, I can say from experience, if my power level is too high or too low comparatively, the game becomes a lot less fun. Good players, at least in my opinion, don't really require the DM to do anything in order to play a balanced game. They will make sure that their characters are in line with the rest of the party and not overpowered. Even if you have a player who likes to chain gate solars, you can talk to him or her and usually help them understand why the game is pointless and no fun when people chain gate solars. Banning anything, whether it be classes, feats, books, equipment, or people, doesn't get to the root of the problem. Sure, you can solve your problems by kicking the munchkin out of your group, but he isn't going to ever learn unless someone teaches him.

[Aemoh87]

I have never banned anything. Our rule is if the players can use it I can. I have DM'd against a Planar Shep before but it was a newer player who did not understand what he copy pasted from the net so it was not an issue. Plus we were not in Eb. Granted an advanced player could have just created a plane to their liking, this character had no idea so he just refocused his character and barely used his wild shape.

We do have a infinate equals zero, and we do not allow taint since it does not fit the flavor of most of our campaigns.

Once a new player got cute and tried to pun pun, but since we don't allow internet at our sessions the forgot how lol.

The experienced players in our group are far more concerned with their character in the world than their character on paper so I can trust them with anything. The only rules issues we really have is this is a merger of a few groups and we have all played with different readings of rules/houserules.

We did have a campaign end to shivering touch too. A factotum thought it would be fun to put it in arrows blah blah blah, long story short a bunch of ice theme wizard mobs liked the spell too. TPK.

[Shadowknight12]

Honestly, I think banning things is not ever going to solve your problems. The guy who chain-gates solars will find a way to break the game no matter how many sources you ban. Working with your group is the only way to do it. And even as a player, I can say from experience, if my power level is too high or too low comparatively, the game becomes a lot less fun. Good players, at least in my opinion, don't really require the DM to do anything in order to play a balanced game. They will make sure that their characters are in line with the rest of the party and not overpowered. Even if you have a player who likes to chain gate solars, you can talk to him or her and usually help them understand why the game is pointless and no fun when people chain gate solars. Banning anything, whether it be classes, feats, books, equipment, or people, doesn't get to the root of the problem. Sure, you can solve your problems by kicking the munchkin out of your group, but he isn't going to ever learn unless someone teaches him.

I agree with you in everything except the bolded part. I don't think munchkins or powergamers need to be "taught" anything. There's a tendency that disgusts me to the very core where some people have certain preferences that others dislike and that makes them somehow "wrong" and in need of "teaching." Just because I wouldn't want a munchkin at my table doesn't mean I consider them to be in need of learning absolutely anything. I think their playstyle, awful to me as it might be, is perfectly valid and should be respected.

[Luckmann]

PF:
Full casters.
Non-druidic shapeshifting.
Wishes.

I think that's it.

[BinaryMage]

I agree with you in everything except the bolded part. I don't think munchkins or powergamers need to be "taught" anything. There's a tendency that disgusts me to the very core where some people have certain preferences that others dislike and that makes them somehow "wrong" and in need of "teaching." Just because I wouldn't want a munchkin at my table doesn't mean I consider them to be in need of learning absolutely anything. I think their playstyle, awful to me as it might be, is perfectly valid and should be respected.

Fair point and I absolutely agree with you. A better way to phrase my sentence would be "help the munchkin/power gamer to figure out how best to incorporate his desired play style into a cohesive group where everyone has fun".
My main point is that I don't think kicking people out of your group is a valid solution.

[Aemoh87]

I agree with you in everything except the bolded part. I don't think munchkins or powergamers need to be "taught" anything. There's a tendency that disgusts me to the very core where some people have certain preferences that others dislike and that makes them somehow "wrong" and in need of "teaching." Just because I wouldn't want a munchkin at my table doesn't mean I consider them to be in need of learning absolutely anything. I think their playstyle, awful to me as it might be, is perfectly valid and should be respected.

I think that power gamers need to learn how to do it. I love LOVE LOVE to power game. But sometimes this means that I try to power game strange classes and mechanics (like my recent slight of hand/disarm character) who is a pacifist and a thief. While I play this a new player can play a Tier 1 class and have tons of fun with lots of easy success. Fun for all!

[Silus]

Psionics. Bad experiences with them and I don't know how they work.

[Shadowknight12]

Fair point and I absolutely agree with you. A better way to phrase my sentence would be "help the munchkin/power gamer to figure out how best to incorporate his desired play style into a cohesive group where everyone has fun".

Ah, sorry for any undeserved aggression on my behalf. I honestly think the path that will lead to the most fun for all involved is to segregate players. Let the munchkins play with the munchkins and the low-op people with the low-op people. Nobody needs to change anything for anybody, and everyone can feel free to be themselves while surrounded by similarly-minded people. The only situation where I'd support mixing people of wildly different playstyles together is when there is no other choice. It's either that or not playing at all. And while I'd personally choose not to play, I understand that not everyone thinks the same way.

EDIT:


I think that power gamers need to learn how to do it. I love LOVE LOVE to power game. But sometimes this means that I try to power game strange classes and mechanics (like my recent slight of hand/disarm character) who is a pacifist and a thief. While I play this a new player can play a Tier 1 class and have tons of fun with lots of easy success. Fun for all!

There's no "right" way to power game. You have your own. That's cool. That doesn't mean your way is the "right" way that every power gamer needs to "learn."

[Greenish]

Psionics. Bad experiences with them and I don't know how they work.Which edition did you have bad experiences with?

[CockroachTeaParty]

The only thing I've ever banned so far is the spell Wraithstrike. Somebody made a Gish that used it often, and was making a joke out of all the encounters.

I'm not sure if I'd ban it again, though. It would depend on the character. It was just too painful on a Power Attacking, high Strength Gish. It might be more reasonable on a casty rogue, for instance, or perhaps a magically inclined Monk or some such. I can see how it can be a useful boost for characters that would otherwise have trouble hitting decent AC's, but it can just get a little ridiculous on harder hitting, better built melee characters.

I've never banned the Polymorph line of spells, but I always make it clear that they are 'frowned upon.' Fortunately, none of my players seem to have the patience to do all the work involved in really utilizing polymorph shenanigans.

[Silus]

Which edition did you have bad experiences with?

3 and 3.5. Only games I've DMed.

No problem with 4E though. I play a Shardmind Psion and it's worked out rather well.

[BinaryMage]

Ah, sorry for any undeserved aggression on my behalf. I honestly think the path that will lead to the most fun for all involved is to segregate players. Let the munchkins play with the munchkins and the low-op people with the low-op people. Nobody needs to change anything for anybody, and everyone can feel free to be themselves while surrounded by similarly-minded people. The only situation where I'd support mixing people of wildly different playstyles together is when there is no other choice. It's either that or not playing at all. And while I'd personally choose not to play, I understand that not everyone thinks the same way.


I certainly did not interpret any aggression on your behalf. I saw your post as telling me, and quite correctly, that I needed to clarify what I meant, and I thank you for it. As for segregation of play styles, I agree that works well in most cases, but I think that combining different play styles can actually work better in some cases. Often, if all of the party prefers the same aspect of play, some competition, especially in power gaming, ensues, and often can lead to negative repercussions. Sometimes, putting players with different preferences in the same group really allows each player to shine in what he or she enjoys best, and consequentially have a better experience than having to share that role with others. The munchkin can have the time of his/her life killing everyone while the heavy roleplayer can have the time of his/her life explaining to whatever higher power exactly why the group killed everyone. Both players get to do what they really want, no one has to do what they dislike, everyone wins.

[SilverClawShift]

When I DM I ban Divination, and sometimes I shut down teleportation in advance (but I try to give fair warning). I also generally ask my players to work with me instead of against me.

My DM bans nothing.

He.

He's sick in the head. There's something wrong with him, and instead of making him get help, we egg him on.

[Greenish]

3 and 3.5. Only games I've DMed.

No problem with 4E though. I play a Shardmind Psion and it's worked out rather well.I meant, which edition psionics did you have bad experiences with? 3.0 and 3.5 use entirely different systems (and the former seems more likely to cause bad experiences).

[The-Mage-King]

My DM bans nothing.

He.

He's sick in the head. There's something wrong with him, and instead of making him get help, we egg him on.

Doesn't make him less awesome, I can gather from your campaign journals.





As for me, what I ban depends on what I'm running. If I get a game going at my school this fall, all classes lower than Tier 4 will be soft banned, and Tier 1 will be banned. Seems like the best spot, after all.

PrCs will be dealt with on a case by case basis, of course.

[Silus]

I meant, which edition psionics did you have bad experiences with? 3.0 and 3.5 use entirely different systems (and the former seems more likely to cause bad experiences).

Well the DM that used Psionics blended the two with a hint of 2E for determining if you could even play a Psionic (Like a 5% chance that your character could or some stupid mess). The whole thing just killed the system for me.

[Shadowknight12]

I certainly did not interpret any aggression on your behalf. I saw your post as telling me, and quite correctly, that I needed to clarify what I meant, and I thank you for it. As for segregation of play styles, I agree that works well in most cases, but I think that combining different play styles can actually work better in some cases. Often, if all of the party prefers the same aspect of play, some competition, especially in power gaming, ensues, and often can lead to negative repercussions. Sometimes, putting players with different preferences in the same group really allows each player to shine in what he or she enjoys best, and consequentially have a better experience than having to share that role with others. The munchkin can have the time of his/her life killing everyone while the heavy roleplayer can have the time of his/her life explaining to whatever higher power exactly why the group killed everyone. Both players get to do what they really want, no one has to do what they dislike, everyone wins.

I'm sorry, I just can't imagine that happening at all. I know it sounds good on paper, but I can't actually see that happening at an actual table. Focusing on one player at a time is a terrible idea in practice. What is the heavy roleplayer going to do while the munchkin shines? Chew gum and look bored? And what about the munchkin while the heavy roleplayer gets his or her turn in the spotlight?

I'm sure it can work if a lot of effort is spent on everyone's behalf, but every time someone suggests putting people of different playstyles at the same table, everything points towards "Let us all be miserable together" rather than the outcome you suggested.

[Gorfang113]

Frenzied Bezerker. In my experience it only leads to team killing and bad feelings.

[subject42]

Well the DM that used Psionics blended the two with a hint of 2E for determining if you could even play a Psionic (Like a 5% chance that your character could or some stupid mess). The whole thing just killed the system for me.

As a friendly suggestion, try a Pathfinder game using the Psionics material from Dreamscarred Press. I really didn't understand the hubbub about psionics until I read through Psionics Unleashed. Now I strongly prefer it to Vancian casting.

[Calimehter]

I ban psionics, incarnum, ToB, and other 'alternate mechanics', as does the other DM in our group. I realize that these are popular with many posters here, but my group doesn't get together all that often and we like to keep it simple. We also get what we need out of the core game mechanics and are able to tell the stories we want with them.

Obviously we still have some powerful stuff left in there, so with regards to power mismatches, we go with what many have already said here (gentlemans agreements, swapping characters for better/worse ones to stay in line with others, etc.). So far we haven't had to do too much policing. :smallcool:

[TwylyghT]

I ban the following:

gestalt characters
generic classes
bloodline levels (mostly because nobody can agree how they work)
dice rolling for any part of character development
material not sanctioned for D&D by WotC
Mostly I'm a stickler for the rules, and I won't let people pull spell power shenanigans; spells do what's stated in their description, and never more than that. So "solid" in Shatter means "rigid, not flexible" rather than the inappropriately anachronistic chemical definition "neither liquid nor gas". Enlarge Person increases character gear weight 8x, and the character is required to follow the encumbrance rules (usually that means they're slowed down) as a consequence. Mind Blank doesn't protect against True Seeing, because True Seeing doesn't read emotions or thoughts. Nondetection does have a chance to foil True Seeing and See Invisibility, because these are divination spells that detect, visually. Telekinesis lets you use Violent Thrust to hurl weapons, but does not give you proficiency with these weapons, make melee weapons other than improvised for throwing, or change weapon range increments. Darkness does create shadowy light in a previously pitch black area, despite the spell name making that seem odd. The Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange chain doesn't incorporate any Monster Manuals in the spell descriptions, so players can only assume forms their characters have encountered and identified (with the required Knowledge checks).

Just wondering if the gear should default to the standard (but physics bending) rule of doubling weight with a size step increase? No reason that a medium greatsword held by a medium creature under the effects of enlarge person, should weigh 4 times as much as scale version that's large by default(even if the x8 is the more realistic)

[Curmudgeon]

Just wondering if the gear should default to the standard (but physics bending) rule of doubling weight with a size step increase? No reason that a medium greatsword held by a medium creature under the effects of enlarge person, should weigh 4 times as much as scale version that's large by default(even if the x8 is the more realistic)
No, I really don't think so. A simple, low-level spell would just scale things up in the most straightforward way (as specified by the x8 weight in the spell description), not replace existing gear with items custom built with different proportions. Normally, armor won't be made thicker for a larger person, but simply scaling it up in all dimensions will make that armor bulkier and more encumbering.

[Silus]

As a friendly suggestion, try a Pathfinder game using the Psionics material from Dreamscarred Press. I really didn't understand the hubbub about psionics until I read through Psionics Unleashed. Now I strongly prefer it to Vancian casting.

I'm going to hold off on Psionics until Paizo puts out something official. Feels like using that Green Ronin material from 3/3.5. Feels.....dirty.

[Togath]

From what I've heard about pathfinder psionics, it's pretty close to 3,5 psionics, also if you want to look at the 3.5 rules for psionics you can find them on the srd here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35), basically you get a pool of points each day which you can then spend to use a power from your list of powers known, powers range from level 1 powers to level 9 powers, just like spells, by expending higher amounts of power points(as described in the powers description) you can increase the effect of the power(though not all powers have this property, ones that do say so in their description, and explain in which ways they scale)

also an on topic comment; for my games I usually ban 9th level spells, either because spells such as meteor swarm are not that much stronger then lower level blasting spells, or(in cases of spells like wish) some are too much stronger(though I still allow 9th level healing spells, and limited wish[still as a 7th level spell]) than lower level spells.

[Honest Tiefling]

I understand that many people vastly prefer banning people if they are up to shenanigans because they'll break anything they can. People who break the game to not make it fun for others really need to stop it.

But on the other hand, there are some handy uses of ban lists, such as banning things that the DM doesn't have to prevent rule confusion, banning unknown systems, or even banning things that go against the theme of the campaign. A city campaign is probably not the best time to bring up a druid looking to enter Fist of the Forest...(At least, I think that is the correct PrC, but the one where you wear dirt and eat berries. Hopefully all of you get my point)

And honestly, I rather that DMs tell me if things are banned then show up with a druid in a party full of monks. And I rather play a different class then confuse the DM by trying to tweak druid.

Still, if a player breaks things to 'win' DnD, it is likely time for a chat with the chap, rather then banning their cheese.

[Greenish]

A city campaign is probably not the best time to bring up a druid looking to enter Fist of the Forest...Fist of the Forest requires you to spent most of your nights outside, and never pay for food, but begging and stealing are okay.

There's a reason it's nickname is hobo-fist.


[Edit]: Though it's class features would make a good urban brawler, if the fluff was to be relaxed.

Oh, and it's not a druid PrC.

[Serpentine]

Like others, I don't really outright ban things, but I do have a list of "please don'ts" preceeded by a sort of mission statement. Thusly:

Game Statement: Unless specified otherwise, my games are roleplay-focussed cooperative storytelling. Mechanics serve character concept, not the other way round. The goal is an interesting character, not a powerful one. Aim for about Tier 3. If you want to powergame or incorporate cheese, this is not the game for you.

Please don't use wind walk - this has been instituted since ex-DM's game. He had a session planned out where we'd have to travel to a far away city. We'd have an encounter with a bunch of giants, and then we'd have to work out how to get into the zombie-infested city, then make our way through the waves of various zombies to the centre of the city where the bad guys - whom we don't even know exist - are chillin'. Instead, a character cast wind walk on all of us. We floated over the heads of the giants, chatted to the kobold Ranger on the walls (I loved that little guy...), then wandered into the middle of the city. Because we didn't know who those people were, we just sorta floated around aimlessly for a while eavesdropping on them, 'til finally the DM had them do or say something undeniably evil and we finally reapparated and fought them in a fairly unsatisfactory sort of battle.
If someone really wants to use wind walk, I'll let them, but it changes my whole game style and I need to know in advance so I can plan for it.

Please don't use divination - specifically, the "spying on a place somewhere else" and/or "finding out what will happen" type of divinations. This is mostly a practical concern - I'm just not that organised! Again, if they really want it I'll allow it, but I may request that they only use it in certain circumstances or similar. I'd rather they more actively scope things out...

Please don't use Natural Spell - It just removes the main leash on Druids: they incorporate 3 different powerful classes, but they can only be one of them at a time. Again, if someone really wants it I'll let them, but it probably needs to be for a pretty sub-par Druid.

In the case of Tier 1 full spellcasters, please choose spells primarily for roleplay/flavour reasons, not just the best possible selections - I encourage spellcasters to stick with a concept-appropriate theme. Even better, I'll encourage them to seek out more restricted but flavourful variants or homebrews (e.g. the Druid in my game who got me to homebrew a Magma Druid variant).

If it's not pretty standard or something we've seen used before, I need to see and pass it - pretty self-explanitory. Homebrew is allowed, but I feel more comfortable with it if it has plenty of critiquing and/or if it's from someone I know to be a good, reliable homebrewer.

[Circle of Life]

I don't ban things, I adapt them to be more reasonable if a player wishes to use them. "Incantatrix? The idea is neat, but the execution is pretty stupidly overpowered. What did you like about the class so we can try to preserve that while removing the broken bits?" or "So you want to play a Druid? That's cool, everyone here knows how they work. Just give me a list of creatures you'd like to turn into; some of them aren't really suited for player use, so we might need to tweak a few things here and there."

I find this to be the most reasonable course of action, but then again, I don't play with people who can't follow a general gentleman's agreement, so YMMV.

[Tetsubo 57]

Natural Spell.
Evil alignments.
Bucklers are not strapped to your arm. They are held in your hand.
Mercurial weapons of any sort.
Spiked chain, spiked chain, spiked chain. The spiked chain x1000.

[Togath]

I don't get whats wrong with mercurial weapons, they require an exotic weapon proficiency feat to use, and they only do either 1d8/x4, or 2d6/x4 damage, unless there is something I'm missing about them.

[Coidzor]

Please don't use wind walk

You found the spell rather than the lack of desire on the part of the group & lack of impetus/ability to provoke desire to investigate the world around them to be the issue in this case? :smallconfused:

[Tetsubo 57]

I don't get whats wrong with mercurial weapons, they require an exotic weapon proficiency feat to use, and they only do either 1d8/x4, or 2d6/x4 damage, unless there is something I'm missing about them.

I don't ban them for mechanical reasons. I ban them because they are physically absurd. Putting a hollow tube filled with a lethal liquid metal in a sword blade is DUMB. It would mean the blade would break pretty much the first time you use it. Spraying you with toxic metal. That is not a plan for success.

Want a weapon that concentrates power well? Use an axe. Solved in one step and requires no Exotic weapon proficiency nor exposure to mercury. Win!

[Togath]

Ah, I understand what you mean about the fluff of the swords, I tend to discourage them too, mainly because of the weird fluff, and the fact that they are not very mechanically interesting(stat -wise), I had thought you meant you banned them because of damage, I had misunderstood.

[Serpentine]

You found the spell rather than the lack of desire on the part of the group & lack of impetus/ability to provoke desire to investigate the world around them to be the issue in this case? :smallconfused:This happened early in our gaming careers. It was used without consideration for what exactly it involves or what it'd mean for the game.
It wasn't "a lack of impetus/ability to provoke desire to provoke desire to investigate the world around them", it was "hey, we've gotta go from here to there in a limited amount of time, and I've got this snazzy new spell! Lets try it out! ...oh look, a random encounter way down there. Isn't that nice."

[BinaryMage]

I'm sorry, I just can't imagine that happening at all. I know it sounds good on paper, but I can't actually see that happening at an actual table. Focusing on one player at a time is a terrible idea in practice. What is the heavy roleplayer going to do while the munchkin shines? Chew gum and look bored? And what about the munchkin while the heavy roleplayer gets his or her turn in the spotlight?

I'm sure it can work if a lot of effort is spent on everyone's behalf, but every time someone suggests putting people of different playstyles at the same table, everything points towards "Let us all be miserable together" rather than the outcome you suggested.

I admit I have not as much experience as I would like, but I think it can work. Sure, it requires a lot of work on the part of the players and DM, but I think if it creates a better game, it would be well worth the trouble. It probably really depends on the players you have. Most people don't enjoy all parts of D&D anyway, and might as well "chew gum and look bored". What really matters, at least in my opinion, is that they get to shine when the part comes along that they really enjoy.

[molten_dragon]

I don't hard ban much of anything, with the exception of obviously game-breaking things like the d2 crusader, or pun-pun, or infinite loops of various kinds.

Typically I will will give the players a list of books that I will allow anything from. These are the books that I am extremely familiar with and know what to expect. Anything outside of that is typically 'run it by me first'. I'm a bit more resistant to psionics, incarnum, and ToM, simply because I'm not familiar with them, but I'll take the time to learn if a player really wants to use something from them. I also tend to be pretty resistant to material from a campaign setting other than the one we're playing in, with a couple exceptions. And finally, I tend to have soft ban on non-WotC material and things like dragon magazine.

As far as players go, I've only had to ban one player (she repeatedly asked if she could bring her three dogs to our house during gaming sessions because she didn't want to leave them at home, and after a few times of me saying no, she just went ahead and brought them anyway). I've had a couple others where we decided mutually after the first session that what we wanted in a game was so different that there wasn't much chance of us both enjoying playing in the same game so they didn't come back.

[Coidzor]

This happened early in our gaming careers. It was used without consideration for what exactly it involves or what it'd mean for the game.
It wasn't "a lack of impetus/ability to provoke desire to provoke desire to investigate the world around them", it was "hey, we've gotta go from here to there in a limited amount of time, and I've got this snazzy new spell! Lets try it out! ...oh look, a random encounter way down there. Isn't that nice."

You said they also skipped story because of the spell as well in your earlier blurb. Also, if it was truly a random encounter, then it doesn't matter that they evaded it. :smalltongue:

And you seem to be splitting hairs & arguing semantics by stating what I did in more specific terminology.

[Krazzman]

Hmm at our groups I mostly have this list:

o No death by massive damage.
o Crossbows don't provoke Attacks of Opportunity when fired.
o Sneak attack (and other Precision damage) deals 1/2 damage to creatures immune to crits.
o Change to Tumble: This works exactly like the PHB version of Tumble, except that the "base" DC of tumbling through the area threatened by an enemy is equal to 10+its BAB instead of a flat 15. So tumbling through the threatened space of a creature with a BAB of 3 is 13. To tumble through an area occupied by an enemy, change the tumble check's DC to 20+its BAB instead of a flat 25. So tumbling through the space of an enemy with 6 BAB requires a DC 26 check. As it's noted in the PHB, the DC to tumble through the threatened area or area occupied by a creature rises by 2 for each creature after the first.
o The DC to resist a coup-de-grace is equal to 15 + 1/2 character level of attacker + ability modifier that would normally be added to the character's attack roll.

HP:

o Gain max HP for every level.
o Creatures add their Constitution score to their total HP. This is a one-time gain, and is not gained again at any level but first, and is changed retroactively with changes to Constitution. This is in addition to their Constitution modifier at every level.
o Magic Items that grand an increase to Intelligence give NO skillpointbonus.
o Characters get +1 inherent bonus (stacks) to two DIFFERENT ability scores at every even level. This replaces both the standard ability boost every 4 levels, Tomes/Manuals (such as the Tome of Clear Thought), and the ability gain from the use of the Wish spell. (Player Characters ONLY!)
o Fractional BSB and BAB

Spells/Feats:

o Bull's Strength line of spells (Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance, etc) gives an unnamed bonus to the ability score.
o Crushing Outlaw (and so on) are used.

Class Changes:

o Classes that have medium BAB gain a +1 Competence bonus to attack for every four levels they have in the class under special conditions. Here are some examples:
o Rogues: When they flank
o Ninjas: In a round in which they use abilities that use up Ki Points
o Monks: When they use Flurry of Blows
o Swordsages: When they use a martial Strike
o Factotums: During a round in which they spend Inspiration points. (Round begins on their turn, ends at the beginning of their next turn.)
o Scouts: When they skirmish
o Psychic Warriors: On a round they gain or lose psionic focus, as well as the round after they've manifested a power
o Druids use the Shape shifter variant from PHB2.
o Barbarians can be Lawful


Banned List

Banned Classes
o Lion Totem Barbarian variant
o Domain Wizard variant
o Master of Many Forms

Banned Feats
o Initiate of Mystra
o Divine Metamagic
o Sanctum Spell
o Leadership
o Dragon Wild Shape
o Wild Cohort
o Item Familiar
o Vow of Nonviolence
o Troll-Blooded
o Undead Leadership
o Snow Tiger Berserker
o Air Devotion
o Animal Devotion
o Chaos Devotion
o Destruction Devotion
o Law Devotion
o Protection Devotion
o Greenbound Summoning
o Words of Creation

Banned Spells
o Consumptive Field, Greater Consumptive Field
o Magic Disjunction
o Lesser Celerity, Celerity, Greater Celerity
o Shrink Item
o Polymorph Any Item
o Gate
o Love's Pain
o Shape change
o Enhance Wild shape
o Contingency
o Genesis
o Ice Assassin

It's far from complete and I have to see if I remove some of them.

[Munchkin-Masher]

You people ain't no fun, I find that banning things only creates frustration and defiance in players, i simply ask my players to show me their sheets and to tell me what they intend, if i see anything that looks iffy in inquire about it and if it seems like it might be a problem i ask them to change it, i always look at player sheets a day or two before we start playing, either in email or though the interwebs. I refuse to play with groups i don't know so i generally know the powerlevels of campaigns

I never ban subjects of discussion as i don't play with children and expect my player to: 1. Respect each other and 2. not become butthurt at the mere mention of a sensitive subject.

[Shadowknight12]

I admit I have not as much experience as I would like, but I think it can work. Sure, it requires a lot of work on the part of the players and DM, but I think if it creates a better game, it would be well worth the trouble. It probably really depends on the players you have. Most people don't enjoy all parts of D&D anyway, and might as well "chew gum and look bored". What really matters, at least in my opinion, is that they get to shine when the part comes along that they really enjoy.

I don't necessarily disagree with your good will, I disagree with your assumption that it might create a better game. I am completely convinced that segregation ultimately leads to more fun for all involved.

[Talya]

Why would anyone ban wild cohort? or "master of many forms," for that matter? Neither are close to overpowered.

[Coidzor]

Why would anyone ban wild cohort? or "master of many forms," for that matter? Neither are close to overpowered.

Well, the fact that the party didn't have any meatshield player characters and instead had a druid with a riding dog and my heavy horse from wild cohort somehow almost gave my DM a conniption fit.

Why, exactly, was not intimated to us.

[Midnight_v]

You people ain't no fun, I find that banning things only creates frustration and defiance in players, i simply ask my players to show me their sheets and to tell me what they intend, if i see anything that looks iffy in inquire about it and if it seems like it might be a problem i ask them to change it, i always look at player sheets a day or two before we start playing, either in email or though the interwebs. I refuse to play with groups i don't know so i generally know the powerlevels of campaigns

I never ban subjects of discussion as i don't play with children and expect my player to: 1. Respect each other and 2. not become butthurt at the mere mention of a sensitive subject.

I respect your view more than any other in this thread so far. I couldn't agree more.
I see a lot of things, that I consider to be "baggage" and a lot of things that really boil down to "ignorance" when it boils down to balance issues.
While I can't say with any relavence how "D&D is supposed to work" in other people games.
The most mature thing I've heard anybody say is what you said. I'm not gonna just ham fistedly ban something.
Why? Most of the people I play with are my actual friends, and while I have the most mechanical knowledge of the game, they have concepts, and opinions, and they happen to be dedicating resources to come play together.
So I try to respect them as much as possible with regards to what gets into a game. One thing I do is make players share concepts with each other, everybodies making pc's "together" and there are no "secret mysterious dude" out of game. Yep, in real life everyone knows you're a:
Fighter/Barbarian/Cloud Jumper/Master of Black Flame. Or whatever. Or if you secretly worship the Elder Evils, thats not going to be surprise to the people "In the room", and that's either going to gel with them from the start, or not. So I try to be fairly democratic.

[Greenish]

Why would anyone ban wild cohort? or "master of many forms," for that matter?Well, I can almost see those, Wild Cohort is an extra meat shield, MoMF gives access to many critters he's trying to limit the access to.

What I don't see are Chaos Devotion or Snow Tiger Berserker.

Or Lion Totem Barbarian, but there I think he means the Spirit Lion Totem one.

[thompur]

Materials from any book I don't own.
Specifically for my new campaign

*Limited Wish
*Wish
*Miracle

*These not be a power for mortals

#True Resurection
#Resurection
#Raise Dead

#as class spells. They become rituals that need special dispensation from the gods.
(Reincarnate, on the other hand, is allowed.)

=Gate
=Any other spell that summons extraplanar creatures

=Since the outer planes are currently inaccessible(both ways)

[TwylyghT]

Materials from any book I don't own.
Specifically for my new campaign

*Limited Wish
*Wish
*Miracle

*These not be a power for mortals

#True Resurection
#Resurection
#Raise Dead

#as class spells. They become rituals that need special dispensation from the gods.
(Reincarnate, on the other hand, is allowed.)

=Gate
=Any other spell that summons extraplanar creatures

=Since the outer planes are currently inaccessible(both ways)

I must say thats the first time I have seen Summon Monster I banned lol.

I am curious, are paladins, healers, liberators etc are automatically denied their mounts/companions as well?

[Squiggles]

We don't ban too much anymore, our optimization level is pretty low though.

Psionics and ToB aren't banned but no one uses them so they may as well be :smallbiggrin:

[thompur]

I must say thats the first time I have seen Summon Monster I banned lol.

I am curious, are paladins, healers, liberators etc are automatically denied their mounts/companions as well?

Yeah, the Summon Monster spells aren't banned, just re-worked so that what is summoned is from the prime material, ethereal, or the elemental planes. I am unfamiliar with the Liberator class, but the Pally's mount comes from the prime, and can be a magical beast, or have the extraplanar sub type. It just can't currently reside in the outer planes.

[Soranar]

Krazz, you have some strange choices

Spells/Feats:

o Crushing Outlaw (and so on) are used.

-What is crushing outlaw?

Banned List

Banned Classes
o Lion Totem Barbarian variant

never understood hate vs melee. They're usually the least problematic classes in the game.

o Master of Many Forms

Again, banning good things for tier 3 or less seems harsh for no reason

Banned Feats
o Sanctum Spell

-Only applies at a static location. Not that great considering it costs a feat (maybe for necromancers it could be ok but , again, not great as the HD limit still works).

o Wild Cohort

-Yay a meat shield? Like the others I don't see the problem with that feat.

o Vow of Nonviolence

-I can understand how having one of those guys around is annoying but I'm not sure banning this feat is necessary (unless he never loses it's benefits when he lets his companions slaughter everything in sight).

o Snow Tiger Berserker

-Again,melee hate is not my thing and using light weapons is usually a debuff in an of itself for a melee character.

o Air Devotion

-Basically windwall + a deflection bonus 1 or 2/day (unless you have a lot of charisma or turn undead rods) Hardly overpowered.

o Animal Devotion

-Strong feat for a paladin or a blackguard, ordinary or downright bad for a cleric (also needs a deity with the animal domain, restrictive).

o Chaos Devotion

-Starting to think you have problems with high AC players cause this feat is terrible.

o Destruction Devotion

-Minor debuff, could be useful vs high CR opponents but it's not spectacular or particularly versatile. Again, I don't see any reason to ban this.

o Law Devotion

-Again,strong feat albeit it's easy to qualify for (compared to animal devotion). Still not impressive for a tier 1 class and pretty useful for classes that need it so I don't see the point.

o Protection Devotion

-Ok, you just hate any kind of AC boost.


Banned Spells
o Consumptive Field, Greater Consumptive Field

-Minor bonus that doesn't last very long that you can't make permanent. I guess you could abuse it with a bag of dying creatures but the duration makes it a non issue as far as I know.


o Love's Pain [/I]

- I think you meant Love's Lament. Considering it's a bard only spell I really don't see the problem. Can potentially shut down WIS based casters or reduce will saves but it's a fairly high level bard only spell.

o Shape change
o Genesis
o Ice Assassin
o Magic Disjunction

-I don't like banning spells I like to use against my players and level 9 spells should be powerful (hell you're nearly epic when you get them). Any trick my players use against me (like a remote controlled ice assassin that uses shapechange and casts mage's disjunction from a genesis created pocket plane) will see himself face with the same trick. At this point you should be facing epic encounters so all those tricks will be needed.

[Calimehter]

You people ain't no fun, I find that banning things only creates frustration and defiance in players, i simply ask my players to show me their sheets and to tell me what they intend, if i see anything that looks iffy in inquire about it and if it seems like it might be a problem i ask them to change it, i always look at player sheets a day or two before we start playing, either in email or though the interwebs. I refuse to play with groups i don't know so i generally know the powerlevels of campaigns
I never ban subjects of discussion as i don't play with children and expect my player to: 1. Respect each other and 2. not become butthurt at the mere mention of a sensitive subject.

That's completely fair that you don't have any banlists, but I just had to bold that part of your quote, because that's a really important condition. D&D as a wide-open game has a *lot* of potential for abuse . . . and by abuse in this case, I mean things that don't just lead to imbalances, but things that shut down the game altogether. Gaming with people you already know and (mostly, one assumes) get along with really means that you have already settled into a agreed playstyle and have a "banlist" of sorts, however unspoken it may be, that keeps the game flowing and functioning free of pun-puns, d2 crusaders, and so on.

If your group is close enough to not need any codified banlists . . . well, kudos to you guys. :) However, written out banlists can serve useful functions. They can help spell out what sort of 'flavor' a given campaign will be, and they can be a wonderfully concise and useful tool in helping new players to a given group get a good feel of what will fit in both in terms of flavour *and* power level.

IMO Codified banlists are no more inherently "unfun" than high-op players are "bad roleplayers".

[Tenno Seremel]

o Love's Pain [/I]

- I think you meant Love's Lament

AFAIR, Love's Pain is a spell that deals damage to target's dearest loved one. Personally, why it even exists is beyond me.

[Serpentine]

You said they also skipped story because of the spell as well in your earlier blurb. Also, if it was truly a random encounter, then it doesn't matter that they evaded it. :smalltongue:

And you seem to be splitting hairs & arguing semantics by stating what I did in more specific terminology.I'm splitting hairs and arguing semantics?! Don't make me laugh.
There was nothing deliberate in it, nothing disparaging of the story or the game world. We were just new to the game, and new to that spell, and there was a lot of faffing about and confusion. That's it. How about you assume that seeing as I was there I know what I'm talking about, eh?

[Coidzor]

I'm splitting hairs and arguing semantics?! Don't make me laugh.

Now I'm curious, where did you get that I was stating that you were doing it deliberately?

And if I wanted to make you laugh I'd be bringing up the events of a certain summer not so long ago, but that's really neither here nor there as pleasant as it is to recall. :smallwink:


AFAIR, Love's Pain is a spell that deals damage to target's dearest loved one. Personally, why it even exists is beyond me.

It is a tad random and mostly only useful combo'd with mindrape and an extension of scry and die anyway.

[Malimar]

I ban most third-party stuff, most homebrew, and some Dragon Magazine and WotC web content. That's, uh, about it. My policy is basically "balance through a plethora of options".

There are, of course, some things (generally on a case by case basis) I might interpret differently from the general consensus, either because the general consensus is unbalanced or simply because it's wrong.
For example: if I had players of high enough level, I would completely allow the Dark Chaos Shuffle, BUT racial proficiencies are not feats.
Another example: I would allow dragonwrought kobolds if kobolds existed in my campaign setting in numbers great enough that you would need to take off your socks to count them, BUT my campaign makes much more use of aging effects than most others so it's dangerous to start Venerable, and you're not a True Dragon because you don't fit, among other things, the size specifications MMI lays out for True Dragons.

The white text in the previous paragraph brings up a side note: banning a thing is different from that thing just not existing in my campaign setting. But even then, I'll usually let it slide, because you can find all manner of bizarre and unique creatures in Endeesy. But you can say "pazuzu" all you want and nothing'll happen.

Also: a link (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-virtues-of-yes-and.html) which is relevant to the virtues of altering instead of banning.

[TwylyghT]

Yeah, the Summon Monster spells aren't banned, just re-worked so that what is summoned is from the prime material, ethereal, or the elemental planes. I am unfamiliar with the Liberator class, but the Pally's mount comes from the prime, and can be a magical beast, or have the extraplanar sub type. It just can't currently reside in the outer planes.

Ah cool, gotchya.

[Greenish]

Banned Classes
o Lion Totem Barbarian variant

never understood hate vs melee. They're usually the least problematic classes in the game.Run is a clearly overpowered feat, and getting it by trading out just +10' speed bonus is cheating!



Banned Feats
o Sanctum Spell

-Only applies at a static location. Not that great considering it costs a feat (maybe for necromancers it could be ok but , again, not great as the HD limit still works).To be fair, Sanctum Spell is usually used for all manners of early entry and other full caster tricks. For other uses, it's not really worth it, so…


Any trick my players use against me (like a remote controlled ice assassin that uses shapechange and casts mage's disjunction from a genesis created pocket plane) will see himself face with the same trick.I'm sure the fighter will be overjoyed when he gets caught in the middle.

[SowZ]

Natural Spell.
Evil alignments.
Bucklers are not strapped to your arm. They are held in your hand.
Mercurial weapons of any sort.
Spiked chain, spiked chain, spiked chain. The spiked chain x1000.

Why no bucklers on the arm? There is no reason someone couldn't do it, (people do it in LARPS, movies, historically, etc.) and the 'choose between the +1AC boost or the weapon in that hand at a -1 to hit' is hardly overpowered...

[Vandicus]

I personally approve stuff from Dragon Magazine and non WoTC sources, and ban anything that causes me to pause and think "That's just stupid." Examples include Amulets of Retribution and Starmantle Cloaks. I allow things that are clearly abuseable, as long as players don't abuse them, such as the Celerity line of spells. However, my primary method of dealing with a high optimization campaign is to optimize my monsters as well.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why no bucklers on the arm? There is no reason someone couldn't do it, (people do it in LARPS, movies, historically, etc.) and the 'choose between the +1AC boost or the weapon in that hand at a -1 to hit' is hardly overpowered...

A note on this: when I spar (typically with PVC pipe and foam padding, although I am working on a set of SCA-allowed armor and gear at an extremely slow rate due to my lack of funds and time), I use a spear, held in both hands, with a buckler on my off-hand. It is clunky and inefficient (to the point, at times, of outright impeding movement), and were I doing it with a sword instead of a spear, fighting with that hand at the same level that I would without would be simply impossible. The only reason it works with a spear is because I only use it on the supporting hand, which does not need to make a diverse range of movements in a typical combat situation.

Not that I'm the definitive expert on fighting with a buckler, but it can be done--albeit not without complications.

As for what I ban? Mechanically...

Most long-range (100 miles/level) teleportation spells. Gemjump is allowed (with the material components instead used as focuses specifically attuned to the "sister gem", creating a two-way link between them), but I'd like the adventuring party to actually explore the environments, somewhat. (In other words--they are tasked with bringing the Gemjump Network online.)
Pun-Pun.
Chain-Gating Solars.

That's it.

Player-wise?
Random PC destruction. This one came into effect during a one-off module I created for the testing of my campaign setting and my very first real DM experience, where the barbarian picked up a halfling ranger DMPC-who-was-supposed-to-be-a-player-who-dropped-at-the-last-moment into a Prismatic Wall after I insisted he could not throw one of the actual players in, whereupon the poor ranger failed all his saves and was thus set on fire, poisoned, electrocuted (this killed him), killed (for good measure), turned to stone, turned insane, and the party heard his last dying cackle as his stony corpse was transported to another dimension. His statuesque corpse is in the Elemental Plane of Fire, and his soul in Mechanus.
Raping other PCs. This one came into effect during the same one-off module, whereupon the Lawful Good Cleric of St. Cuthbert (who was, at the time, enlarged) dropped trou and successfully broke a lock on a door with his naughty bits (28 on the Strength check). He then tried to force himself on the gnome Beguiler DMPC-who-was-supposed-to-be-a-player-who-also-dropped-at-the-last-moment, who had to resort to stabbing at his junk to keep him at bay.
Being a jerk in general. This one came into effect during, you guessed it, the exact same one-off module, whereupon the last PC who actually showed up (bearing in mind that this was after my event went unplayed at the convention I helped set up and run due to lack of interest, after which they begged me to run it for them after the con) decided that, since this was a one-off without continuity or progression, had no consequences for him, and used all five of his level 6 spells to cast Disintegrate on random doors and objects in the temple (which was centered around a door puzzle, including the giant statue of the BBEG in the middle of the main room, which happened to actually be the BBEG (he was not amused).
Spectating. This happened yesterday, when I tried to play this exact same one-off module with an entirely different group of people (who were, as a whole, more cooperative and proactive about the whole thing) at another convention I helped set up and run, when the sorcerer of the first run decided to sit in. He said only three things in his brief time spent spectating:
1: "When you guys get to the giant rainbow wall, you should jump into it." (This was a group of people being introduced to D&D, who had no idea what a Prismatic Wall was; I had to explain to them why he was telling them this, using the story above, which spoiled the entire build-up to that part of the specific puzzle.)
2: After the very first fight ended and the Prismatic Wall was lifted: "You guys should load up on buff spells and then rest for eight hours to restore spells." (I gave the Cleric PC I had made for this one-off DMM (Persist Spell) and a handful of buff spells on the prepared list to choose from, with the intention of making the Cleric interesting to play in melee OR as a caster; the first Cleric, seeing this, attempted to load up on buff spells, rest for eight hours, load up on MORE buff spells, rest for eight hours, etc., before I stopped him with the "rest to restore spells only once every 24 hours" rule; the sorcerer player, who has no sense of game mastery, was simply regurgitating this fact. I urged him to be quiet if he wanted to stay around and watch.)
3: "Hey, is this the campaign we played where everybody got hit with bad luck?" (Yes, it was.)
After that, I ran him out of the room, throwing pencils and other small objects from the table at him the whole way.

TL;DR general "don't be a jerk" stuff, with a special exception made for long-range teleportation because it solves both the problem of "scry-and-die" tactics (which are a cheesy way to bend the rules and get around meaningful encounter-building by the DM) and hand-waving of entire worlds and environments that the DM has toiled over for your enjoyment.

[SowZ]

A note on this: when I spar (typically with PVC pipe and foam padding, although I am working on a set of SCA-allowed armor and gear at an extremely slow rate due to my lack of funds and time), I use a spear, held in both hands, with a buckler on my off-hand. It is clunky and inefficient (to the point, at times, of outright impeding movement), and were I doing it with a sword instead of a spear, fighting with that hand at the same level that I would without would be simply impossible. The only reason it works with a spear is because I only use it on the supporting hand, which does not need to make a diverse range of movements in a typical combat situation.

Not that I'm the definitive expert on fighting with a buckler, but it can be done--albeit not without complications.

As for what I ban? Mechanically...

Most long-range (100 miles/level) teleportation spells. Gemjump is allowed (with the material components instead used as focuses specifically attuned to the "sister gem", creating a two-way link between them), but I'd like the adventuring party to actually explore the environments, somewhat. (In other words--they are tasked with bringing the Gemjump Network online.)
Pun-Pun.
Chain-Gating Solars.

That's it.

Player-wise?
Random PC destruction. This one came into effect during a one-off module I created for the testing of my campaign setting and my very first real DM experience, where the barbarian picked up a halfling ranger DMPC-who-was-supposed-to-be-a-player-who-dropped-at-the-last-moment into a Prismatic Wall after I insisted he could not throw one of the actual players in, whereupon the poor ranger failed all his saves and was thus set on fire, poisoned, electrocuted (this killed him), killed (for good measure), turned to stone, turned insane, and the party heard his last dying cackle as his stony corpse was transported to another dimension. His statuesque corpse is in the Elemental Plane of Fire, and his soul in Mechanus.
Raping other PCs. This one came into effect during the same one-off module, whereupon the Lawful Good Cleric of St. Cuthbert (who was, at the time, enlarged) dropped trou and successfully broke a lock on a door with his naughty bits (28 on the Strength check). He then tried to force himself on the gnome Beguiler DMPC-who-was-supposed-to-be-a-player-who-also-dropped-at-the-last-moment, who had to resort to stabbing at his junk to keep him at bay.
Being a jerk in general. This one came into effect during, you guessed it, the exact same one-off module, whereupon the last PC who actually showed up (bearing in mind that this was after my event went unplayed at the convention I helped set up and run due to lack of interest, after which they begged me to run it for them after the con) decided that, since this was a one-off without continuity or progression, had no consequences for him, and used all five of his level 6 spells to cast Disintegrate on random doors and objects in the temple (which was centered around a door puzzle, including the giant statue of the BBEG in the middle of the main room, which happened to actually be the BBEG (he was not amused).
Spectating. This happened yesterday, when I tried to play this exact same one-off module with an entirely different group of people (who were, as a whole, more cooperative and proactive about the whole thing) at another convention I helped set up and run, when the sorcerer of the first run decided to sit in. He said only three things in his brief time spent spectating:
1: "When you guys get to the giant rainbow wall, you should jump into it." (This was a group of people being introduced to D&D, who had no idea what a Prismatic Wall was; I had to explain to them why he was telling them this, using the story above, which spoiled the entire build-up to that part of the specific puzzle.)
2: After the very first fight ended and the Prismatic Wall was lifted: "You guys should load up on buff spells and then rest for eight hours to restore spells." (I gave the Cleric PC I had made for this one-off DMM (Persist Spell) and a handful of buff spells on the prepared list to choose from, with the intention of making the Cleric interesting to play in melee OR as a caster; the first Cleric, seeing this, attempted to load up on buff spells, rest for eight hours, load up on MORE buff spells, rest for eight hours, etc., before I stopped him with the "rest to restore spells only once every 24 hours" rule; the sorcerer player, who has no sense of game mastery, was simply regurgitating this fact. I urged him to be quiet if he wanted to stay around and watch.)
3: "Hey, is this the campaign we played where everybody got hit with bad luck?" (Yes, it was.)
After that, I ran him out of the room, throwing pencils and other small objects from the table at him the whole way.

TL;DR general "don't be a jerk" stuff, with a special exception made for long-range teleportation because it solves both the problem of "scry-and-die" tactics (which are a cheesy way to bend the rules and get around meaningful encounter-building by the DM) and hand-waving of entire worlds and environments that the DM has toiled over for your enjoyment.

To each his own. My primary larp weapon is a spear and I wear a buckler on my upper arm. It works great. I've done it with a sword before and whille I ditched it as it slowed me down I would block with it on occasion. All if this is represented, though, by the -1 to hit. That is a fairly substantial thing to overcome for most warriors in D&D. And there are pictures of old warriors made long ago with bucklers. It obviously has advantages.

Whether or not

[BinaryMage]

I don't necessarily disagree with your good will, I disagree with your assumption that it might create a better game. I am completely convinced that segregation ultimately leads to more fun for all involved.

Fair enough. I don't really wish to commit to an opinion on this without some more experimentation, but thank you for sharing your views, I will duly consider them.

[Coidzor]

Raping other PCs. This one came into effect during the same one-off module, whereupon the Lawful Good Cleric of St. Cuthbert (who was, at the time, enlarged) dropped trou and successfully broke a lock on a door with his naughty bits (28 on the Strength check). He then tried to force himself on the gnome Beguiler DMPC-who-was-supposed-to-be-a-player-who-also-dropped-at-the-last-moment, who had to resort to stabbing at his junk to keep him at bay.

:smallfrown: I'm sad now.

[Fitz10019]

You people ain't no fun, I find that banning things only creates frustration and defiance in players, i simply ask my players to show me their sheets ... a day or two before we start playing...
I would expect more problems from last-minute banning than from pre-emptive banning. Assuming you're banning anything.

I ban evil PC characters, because I want to run a heroic campaign.

[Lonely Tylenol]

To each his own. My primary larp weapon is a spear and I wear a buckler on my upper arm. It works great. I've done it with a sword before and whille I ditched it as it slowed me down I would block with it on occasion. All if this is represented, though, by the -1 to hit. That is a fairly substantial thing to overcome for most warriors in D&D. And there are pictures of old warriors made long ago with bucklers. It obviously has advantages.

Whether or not

Then yes, this is basically what I'm saying; wearing a buckler makes it slightly easier for you to block a hit, but slightly more difficult for you to hit. It does not let you become xXKillStealr69Xx (http://shawntionary.com/chainmailbikini/?p=37).

I get the advantages of wearing a buckler. I'm just saying that they don't come without disadvantages, something you and I (but not necessarily everybody) knows.

(Upper arm? I wear mine on my forearm, from elbow to wrist. I couldn't imagine wearing one from shoulder to elbow, but if I had to try, I imagine it would be like a real-world implementation of WoW pauldrons. Does it really work?)


:smallfrown: I'm sad now.

Yeah, it forced me to critically assess whether or not I wanted to DM for these people a second night. (The rest of the dungeon indeed went uncrawled.) Sadly, these three make up most of the players that aren't more a half-hour's drive away that play 3.5, and one of them (the player-killing barbarian) is my brother. They're generally not like this (particularly because we usually play with other, more mature players who keep them in line; I'm usually one of those players, but I happened to be DMing at the time), but this night was particularly bad.

[Lord Bingo]

I prefer to evaluate everything on a case by case basis rather than ban anything outright -except cell phones...

I am thinking of banning tier 1 and 2 character classes to get back to a grittier and better balanced game. I am not sure this would actually be good, though, but it is an experiment I would like to make.

[MlleRouge]

I find that banning things only creates frustration and defiance in players

I agree with this ^

I ban as little as possible at my table, and I tend to resent when things I enjoy playing (such as clerics) are banned...even if I'm not playing one at the time. I usually decline to play in games with long ban lists.

The only things I can think off-hand are certain schools in Tome of Battle (though I prefer it not be used at all), Eberron stuff, well-known cheese and Leadership. I treat banned material like alignment restrictions, though...Meaning 'always' is read as 'usually' and allowing exceptions as long as the player has a cool reason and can be trusted.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Banned List

Banned Classes
o Lion Totem Barbarian variant
o Domain Wizard variant
o Master of Many Forms

Banned Feats
o Initiate of Mystra
o Divine Metamagic
o Sanctum Spell
o Leadership
o Dragon Wild Shape
o Wild Cohort
o Item Familiar
o Vow of Nonviolence
o Troll-Blooded
o Undead Leadership
o Snow Tiger Berserker
o Air Devotion
o Animal Devotion
o Chaos Devotion
o Destruction Devotion
o Law Devotion
o Protection Devotion
o Greenbound Summoning
o Words of Creation

Banned Spells
o Consumptive Field, Greater Consumptive Field
o Magic Disjunction
o Lesser Celerity, Celerity, Greater Celerity
o Shrink Item
o Polymorph Any Item
o Gate
o Love's Pain
o Shape change
o Enhance Wild shape
o Contingency
o Genesis
o Ice Assassin

It's far from complete and I have to see if I remove some of them.

I think you mean Spirit Lion Totem? You are bound and determined to make people stand still if they want to swing their sword twice.

[SowZ]

Then yes, this is basically what I'm saying; wearing a buckler makes it slightly easier for you to block a hit, but slightly more difficult for you to hit. It does not let you become xXKillStealr69Xx (http://shawntionary.com/chainmailbikini/?p=37).

I get the advantages of wearing a buckler. I'm just saying that they don't come without disadvantages, something you and I (but not necessarily everybody) knows.

(Upper arm? I wear mine on my forearm, from elbow to wrist. I couldn't imagine wearing one from shoulder to elbow, but if I had to try, I imagine it would be like a real-world implementation of WoW pauldrons. Does it really work?)



Yeah, it forced me to critically assess whether or not I wanted to DM for these people a second night. (The rest of the dungeon indeed went uncrawled.) Sadly, these three make up most of the players that aren't more a half-hour's drive away that play 3.5, and one of them (the player-killing barbarian) is my brother. They're generally not like this (particularly because we usually play with other, more mature players who keep them in line; I'm usually one of those players, but I happened to be DMing at the time), but this night was particularly bad.

(It doesn't work with a sword, I've found. But when using a spear, it gets in my way less, stays put better, and assuming I am putting my buckler side towards the enemy it protects that spot where swordman can hook stab around my spear when I make 'the wall' where I put the spear parallell to my body in front of me to block swings. It's pretty much passive protection, though, and doesn't do as much as a forearm buckler in my experience. But the trade off is it doesn't really get in my way and I feel better about it when I shoulder check people. You are right about the advantage/disadvantage thing, but I think the rules represent this well enough.)

[nyjastul69]

Try not to ban anything. Players who attempt ridiculousness learn quickly a basic concept of d&d is you cannot win, and as a corollary of this a being always exists which is stronger than you. Have had a couple attempts to bring in clearly online lifted builds meant to break the game, and I just tell them, "Congratulations, you are beating the campaign. You do that, and we'll be over here actually playing the game."

I pretty much agree with this. I don't ever recall actually banning anything at a table other than behavior.

[Coidzor]

I can't stand the sight of an untidied mess myself. Which is part of my biggest reservation about starting to DM, having to tidy up the system so I can be comfortable with how it works enough to let it effect the evolution of my world.

[Krazzman]

I think you mean Spirit Lion Totem? You are bound and determined to make people stand still if they want to swing their sword twice.

No, not directly. I just don't like the Totem Babarian. The way to get a Pound (Full attack at a Charge) is given through a homebrewed feat to get Additional Attacks (like two weapon fighting) while charging.

Have a nice day
Krazzman

[Gnaeus]

I ban PRCs (or anything else I suppose) that are significantly stronger than tier 1s. Planar Shepherd, Tainted Scholar, Incantrix, that kind of thing.

I don't allow most early entry tricks, although I am open to rewriting entry requirements (or other crunch) for underpowered PRC's.

[Andreaz]

My tables work on a single actual ban, and one tweak:
1: No polymorphs resembling the Core stuff. This was largely fixed since we switched over to PF
2: Teleportation farther than dimension hop requires both line of sight and line of effect, or anchor items prepared at the target location. Otherwise they simply fail.

Everything goes through the DM before use, but consider it preapproved as long as its not a big huge monstrous breaker.

Also we are under a gentlemen's agreement on what power levels we seek. On a table we refrain from ubercharging. On another we refrain from batman levels of paranoia.

[bokodasu]

I don't ban anything, unless for fluff reasons, i.e., "We're playing in a world without halflings. No, you can't be a strongheart halfling. Or a jungle one. A halfling that jumped through a portal from another universe is RIGHT OUT. That's it, you're a half-orc."

But yes, that is because I have the luxury of playing with people who are generally mature and not out to break the game, or people who still think that Toughness is a pretty good feat and Druids are kind of weak. If I were faced with people who a) were actually good at optimization AND b) enjoyed proving that by obliterating everything in a 12-mile radius at every opportunity instead of showing off their system mastery by, say, playing a monk that doesn't suck, I'd probably have a ban list too. (But it would not contain psionics or ToB. They're not overpowered and they're fun and it makes me kind of sad that most of my weaker players never want to use them.)

[Tyndmyr]

Banned:
Any infinite loop.
Tainted Scholar.
Beholder Mage.
Third party material/homebrew unless specifically reviewed and approved by me.

Certain games may have additional restrictions like "we're all kobolds, yay"...but thats entirely a theme thing that everyone agrees on.

[Ekul]

Let's see... Nobody else in the group researches optimization, I'm the only one who does that, so if anything gets banned, it's often my fault. I'm mostly talking about one single GM here, since he's the only one who really has to ban anything.

After playing a Warblade with Stormguard Warrior, my DM banned the entire book. (Another DM also bans the book because he says it reminds him too much of anime, which he dislikes.) He then allowed the book under review for a while, and decided that swordsages weren't broken. He banned crusader. He allowed one of the other players to play Warblade, and he ended up dying, so I think he acknowledges that it's the player that makes it broken, not the book. :smallcool:

Hulking Hurler's banned. I almost snuck one in. So close. But the character I was building up to being a Hulking Hurler was already really really powerful. The game he was in was cancelled for a different reason. It was actually a practical joke- the game was Ocarina of Time, and they stopped the story once I found out. (I actually would have liked to continue it, though)

BoVD and BoEF are both banned because my DM is a fine upstanding gentleman. BoED is allowed, but he's wary of the content from that book too.

Complete Divine is complicated. It's quasi-banned. Some classes from it are allowed. Also not my fault. Alot of cleric related things are banned, but not clerics themselves. Nobody really uses Clerics anyway- which seems to be rare for a group. I can only remember two campaigns with Clerics, and they were both played by the same guy. That guy was kinda bad at making his characters stand out. He was overshadowed by are barbarian. BEFORE he turned into an FB.

Buying off level adjustment is banned. Also my fault. I don't remember the specifics though.

He also lifted a ban on druids for a while and after much grief with stoneshape underground, he banned it again. He did allow me to play a wildshape ranger, since it didn't have many spells but was confused and even sounded kinda upset when I wasn't using arrows, apparently stuck in the mindset that a ranger is ranged. Not that I blame him, but I thought he would look it up. Druids and Rangers are hard to play since animals are hard to find in our campaigns.

Truenamers are banned. Not that they need to be, but my DM has a really weird interpretation of them.

Also, Thri-kreens are banned. This one's also not my fault. The GM just hates the idea of them.

Psionics were banned for awhile, but they aren't anymore. That's because nobody has ever broken the mold with psionics in our campaigns. Psionics are bad luck around here, and it's not even the DM's fault. The campaign either won't be long enough to be memorable, the psionic character will be overshadowed or he'll die. Horribly. The closest a thing to a successful psionic character in our campaigns was my Pixie Warlock (Pixies are banned now too, by the way. Hands up if you saw that one coming) who used psionic shot on a regular basis. I had a Xeph Soulknife who won the campaign too, but he didn't use any psionic abilities outside of his racial features.

Now, you guys may ask, if I'm using so many things that end up banned, why doesn't the group hate me? I have a strong tendency to not screw up the campaign beyond making the game magnitudes easier. That I make really broken characters is a part of a character trait that makes me pretty likable at the table- I have the desire to get things done in the most effective and efficient way possible. This makes me very resourceful and single-minded and I usually cause people to have more fun, even as they curse my broken habits. I want the game to be cool, fun and interesting. I'm not going to use broken characters just to derail the formula.

(As a final note none of these things are banned in a solo campaign. We're encouraged to bend the game to our will as much as we can.)

As a GM, I usually don't ban much. My players aren't as good at optimizing and sourcebook crawling as I am, so I don't really need to. Besides, I know tricks to make entire classes useless while leaving weaker classes still useful- so long as the power gap is small enough. And if a player is falling behind, I will be generous and provide that character with a nice magical item. As long as they're being nice about falling behind, that is.