What do you ban?

[CIDE]

Thread was inspired partially from the discussion here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280333)

Overall, what exactly do you ban as a DM? Why would you ban it? How finnicky are you about setting specific material in other settings or homebrew worlds? Will you work to refluff things?

Personally when I ran a game in my homebrew world I had included even third party material. Several bits and pieces had to be refluffed given the mechanics of the world while in other ways it was still "generic" as a D&D based world. I even allowed one player to use an Everquest D20 Shaman as long as it doesn't break the game.

[Karnith]

I generally only ban material that only has abusive uses (e.g. the celerity line of spells, circle magic, Tainted Scholar) and things that are annoying or difficult to use in play (e.g. fast-progression spellcasting classes). I never ban material based on fluff/setting, and I am willing to let/help my players refluff their classes (etc.) if they dislike the original fluff or if the original fluff doesn't fit the campaign. I am also willing to allow homebrew and third-party material in my games, provided that my players get my permission ahead of time.

[Amnestic]

Blanket bans on things from certain settings seems odd to me. There is nothing inherently Eberron about the Song of the Heart feat, and the (racial/location) restriction on many of the Faerun Regional feats are...well, not terribly necessary, I would argue.

And for those that are? Refluff as needed. In some cases it might not work (eg. There aren't any Warforged in your setting, at all, so you can't use them), but generally when it comes to PrCs, spells, feats, etc. a refluff can be done without too much issue to give your players the concept and mechanics that they want.

[Kazyan]

In our crazy games, anything official.

In our saner games, we don't really have an official banlist, but it's sort of understood to not use Complete Champion and that there's a Gentlemen's Agreement. Every other page in CC has something exploitable, which is why we don't like it. We're considering an upcoming game where the available books are Core + Completes - Champion(?) + others upon request depending on what we want to do.

[Telonius]

Mainly along Karnith's lines here, too. Some of the very setting-specific elements might take a bit of work to port over, but there's usually some way to accommodate the Awesome Thing that the player just absolutely has to have for their character. (For example, if somebody wanted to have a Dragonmark feat in Faerun, it would have to lose the "house" fluff, but the mechanical effect would be the same).

[Lord Haart]

Well, i like it when everything's on table as a player, because that gives you more kinds and shapes of bricks to build your character from; main purpose of having a lot of options, in my mind, is to be able to cherry-pick the ones that better represent whatever you want your character to do, not the ones that let you break the game wide open. Since i dislike double standarts (except when i can use them to my own profit), i also permit everything official (and don't quite explicitly ban homebrew; while i maintain facade of despising it as a deterrent, i'm ready to give it my considerations if they will still decide to ask me about some homebrew stuff). Now there's always a risk of someone going all Pun-Pun (and by "always", i mean "as long as you don't start with banning PHB and everything in it); bans are not quite effective at preventing it. Letting NPCs access to any and all tricks PCs employ (with discrimination, of course; can't expect cheese from a cow, but illithid wizard is supposed to have all optimisation forums memorised) works better. You like to sleep in a ropespace? There are some guys who know their Transdimensional Spell. You have ninth level spells at first level? So does someone else, and guess whom he'll single out as most dangerous party member while monk and fighter shine at their job? You managed to pull a real, honest-to-sarukh, infinite-cheese Pun-Pun? Someone had psionic save-load set up just in case. Now your omnipotence is just a bad dream, and the guy who had that dream is very pissed.
In theory, such an approach will quickly show to any munchkin-wannabe the futility of his attempts. In practice, i haven't yet DMd a player who would give it a serious try, so i can't say much.

[Eldan]

Bans are only made for reasons of power level.

Very rarely for setting implications. I had to rewrite the Xenotheurge when, in the second season, the player accidentally almost blew up Sigil. On level 2.

[Roclat]

I don't ban per-Se, I limit. Not that I'm against more than I have, it just lets me have easy access to everything.

Core
PHB2
Complete Completes

Forgotten realms
players guide
dragons of
power of
unapproachable east
magic of
silver marches
MM of

Draconomicon
both fiendish codex
Traps and Trechary

Oriental adventures
Rokugan
Guide to Ninja

I also have some ravenloft books I'm not allowing atm.

I slowly expand my library by either buying books I want periodically, or players buying me books they want stuff from. It's a good system I think, we both know what's available and I don't need to know about seriously broken stuff to avoid.

[Deox]

StP Eurdite.

Other than that, everything is usually on the table. We do have some "Gentleman's Agreement" items, such as the Celerity line, but typically everything is up for grabs. If there is anything questionable, we discuss it as a group and go from there.

[Telonius]

You managed to pull a real, honest-to-sarukh, infinite-cheese Pun-Pun? Someone had psionic save-load set up just in case. Now your omnipotence is just a bad dream, and the guy who had that dream is very pissed.
In theory, such an approach will quickly show to any munchkin-wannabe the futility of his attempts. In practice, i haven't yet DMd a player who would give it a serious try, so i can't say much.

In my settings, Pun-Pun explicitly isn't banned; he's already ascended. And since he has an arbitrary amount of Wisdom and Intelligence, he's deduced that he's actually a fictional character in a roleplaying game. He's also decided that the most amusing use of his vast cosmic power is to mess with people who try to break my game. :smallamused:

[Vaz]

Very rarely for setting implications. I had to rewrite the Xenotheurge when, in the second season, the player accidentally almost blew up Sigil. On level 2.

I'm intrigued. Very intrigued.

My players range from starting optimizers, to those who chose whatever looks awesome.

[eggynack]

I'd ban about half the classes, give or take. Whether that means that fighters and barbarians are banned, or that wizards and sorcerers are banned, is down to the individual games. From that point on, you just ban minor stuff that takes you too far outside that power level. You don't need to ban much downward, optimization wise, but if planar shepards are too powerful for the campaign, then they're too powerful for the campaign. I suppose that you'd still be able to play low tier classes in a high tier campaign, but only as a component of a high tier build. I don't know if that still counts as banning. I guess it's situational banning, which I guess I'm saying is what you want to do no matter what. Ultimately, you ban based on power level, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily ban based on high power level. Planar shepards, StP erudites and incantrixes might not have a place in all, or even most, campaigns, but there's a time and place for them.

[OverdrivePrime]

I ban jerks. If you're a jerk, you can't play.

Aside from that, I go pretty light on bans. I don't encourage third party sources and tend not to use them personally, but if you've found something great, I'll review it to see if it fits my game.

I'm currently running a pretty large pathfinder game. The alchemist and gunslinger classes are banned, because they don't fit the setting. The setting doesn't have much in the way of horses or other mounts, so I discourage the cavalier class.

I haven't banned the fighter, but I strongly encourage people looking to play melee classes to at least consider playing a Tome of Battle class (including the Sublime Way ranger) or at least dipping from one.

Aside from setting-based class choices, about the only thing I come close to banning is evil alignments. I'm open to the conversation, but I've only once seen it not cause significant intra-party problems.

[CaladanMoonblad]

I think this thread's question is already biased.

Rather, what should be asked is, "What do you include beyond Core, and why?"

There are resource issues; if you don't own a book, then why would a GM allow something s/he hasn't read?

As a GM of 20+ years, who has conducted over a dozen campaigns that lasted several years in real time... it's all about world building.

For instance, in the current campaign world for my players, there were previous ages with forgotten magic and lost cultures. There are no more living persons with levels in exotic prestige classes, but some "cultural artifacts" remain and are found from time to time. While these magic items (not actual artifacts per game designation) may come from Faerun or Greyhawk settings, they are not replicable without a significant amount of study. This allows me as a GM to include items from books I own but my players do not.

In sum, I do not include prestige classes (living memory) from outside of Core or from specific settings (like Red Wizards of Thay). Prestige classes are the results of specific cultural responses to perceived threats; why should the prestige class of a specific culture be available if that culture does not exist in the game world? (These are rhetorical questions btw)

[RFLS]

I don't ban things, honestly. I run PF core rules, with all core 3.5 material allowed by default (except where superseded by PF rules), and homebrew+3rd party by permission. I have a list of classes, PrCs, and feats that my players know I look askance at, and I rain holy fire down on anyone that attempts to break the game.

...

It's metaphorical holy fire. Most of the time.

[Roclat]

I don't ban things, honestly. I run PF core rules, with all core 3.5 material allowed by default (except where superseded by PF rules), and homebrew+3rd party by permission. I have a list of classes, PrCs, and feats that my players know I look askance at, and I rain holy fire down on anyone that attempts to break the game.

...

It's metaphorical holy fire. Most of the time.

I like the limit on books because it makes it easy for everyone to know whats available, and I also have a very inexperienced group atm.

I allow broken rules, I mean I helped one player build a character who will eventually ignore huge chunks of armor/Nat armor and Power attack for free using Rokugan feats. I just like to keep it thinned out I guess.

Besides... Anything they can do I can do better, and justify with story.

[Sugashane]

I only ban cheese, such as what many theoretical builds are based one, the Sublime Chord abuse, etc.

Basically anything in print I allow, be it core, another campaign setting, Dragon magazine, third party, etc. (I do have a very experienced group, as I have been playing since early 2000's and am the second least experienced) They will have to fulfill all the prereqs for the prestige classes and feats though, so if they want to take a regional feat from a Forgotten Realms book, it has to somewhat match a land already in my world for example. So if they want to be a Hammer of Moradin, which requires one to be from the Spine of the Wild and to worship (shock, shock) Moradin, and later want to switch into the Eye of Horus-Re, they will have a very difficult time convincing me, as the EoHR requires one to be Mulhorand and to have the Sun domain. Those are two very different regions and Moradin doesn't have the Sun domain.

To me D&D is all about fun and challenges, and as a DM the more open I am to letting them design their own players, the more they connect with their PC and the more fun they have, in part because of how powerful their PCs are in comparison to most games. I have just as many, if not more, resources in which I can also pull out on them, so it is all a fair game to me.

And in the event one would absolutely trick me, I have JaronK's arseplomancer waiting for them.... I'm not kidding.... I have the build made up and waiting. What? They can find a way to raise dead or resurrect!

[RFLS]

I like the limit on books because it makes it easy for everyone to know whats available, and I also have a very inexperienced group atm.

Inexperienced is really about the only reason to keep things off the table, but honestly, if you tell them "everything's available," then it's easier to know if something is allowed or not.


I allow broken rules, I mean I helped one player build a character who will eventually ignore huge chunks of armor/Nat armor and Power attack for free using Rokugan feats. I just like to keep it thinned out I guess.

So...you don't like extra books, but you like borked rules? :smallconfused:


Besides... Anything they can do I can do better, and justify with story.

That's kinda just part and parcel of DMing. Congratulations, I guess. Idk what you were expecting.

[Eldest]

I think this thread's question is already biased.

Rather, what should be asked is, "What do you include beyond Core, and why?"

You're assuming core is not bannable.

That is actually what I would ban, if I ever ended up running a game. No core classes, spells. Feats would be revised. Come to me with a character concept, I'll point you towards a splatbook or (if I can't think of anything) homebrew.

[Person_Man]

Almost nothing.

I ask players nicely not to use things if it makes their character dominate over all other characters in their party. If they do, it makes it less fun for everyone else. (The most common example is Polymorph. It's ok to use it to turn into a sparrow to scout, or as a panic button for when you're about to die. If you use it to turn into a pyrohydra every combat, and the other players are Tier 3 or lower classes, then combat is a lot less fun for them).

Other then that, I'm fully capable of making monsters just as powerful as my players. I am, after all, god of my campaign world.

The only exception would be poorly written rules, such as drowning and Overrun. In that case, I attempt to use my best version of the RAI instead.

[Roclat]

So...you don't like extra books, but you like borked rules? :smallconfused:

Not really, but in a Rokugan campaign, I allow Rokugan rules... Odd I know.


I think more than anything I like to be intimately aware of what's in my game. I'm aware there are several books I lack, but until they start re-printing them for free and sending them my way, I can only piece together stuff as I can.

[The Trickster]

I think this thread's question is already biased.

Rather, what should be asked is, "What do you include beyond Core, and why?"

There are resource issues; if you don't own a book, then why would a GM allow something s/he hasn't read?

As a GM of 20+ years, who has conducted over a dozen campaigns that lasted several years in real time... it's all about world building.


I wouldn't say biased because (and you said it yourself) D&D is about world building. Some worlds don't have paladins, but may have samurais. Monks may not fit in the world, but swashbucklers might...or something along those lines.

As for the original question, I would allow anything that:

A) Makes sense in the world I am trying to create, and
B) Isn't going to break the game.

I recommend asking each player to describe what they want their character to be, and coming to an agreement on what classes/races/etc are available to make the character. Classes are only templates to make a class anyway, so if I feel certain classes are broken, there are usually other ways to create a character anyway.

[killem2]

Item Familiars, and evil alignments.

[Namfuak]

In general, I just expect that people aren't going to make characters that exploit some rules loophole or other obvious cheese, and I've told them before that you can't enter an arms race with the DM and win. On the other hand, I try to figure out what everyone is playing beforehand and shepard them into characters that will play well together. That doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be a paladin and a wizard in the same party, but instead that the wizard is focused on non-damaging stuff that helps the party rather than just being God. None of us have an interest in one-upping everyone else though (except when as a player I had an ingame rivalry with another character), so it works out OK.

Honestly, I think that if you feel you need to ban books for the purpose of preventing people from trying to break the game, your problem isn't the books. That isn't to say that if you think certain books are overpowered even when used in good faith or don't fit your campaign you shouldn't ban them, but sometimes it seems like people see powerful tricks around the internet and immediately ban some part of it to prevent their players from using it. Or they are a DM that doesn't like melee to have nice things and bans ToB.

[ddude987]

I don't ban anything, though dragon magazine and 3rd party stuff or homebrew has to be approved. My reasoning is banning things limits players that aren't out to break the rules. I would rather play rocket tag with someone abusing the game than not allow a player who isn't going to cause trouble to use something.

[Chaosvii7]

I was raised on and still play with a DM who plays with only WoTC Material - Core, Eberron, Faerun, and Dragon Magazines. Now that I think about it(read: when this first crossed my mind like, last year), it kind of makes sense; If we're allowed to bring anything to the table, so is he. Not that he expressly counterpicks every encounter against a player, but he would definitely counter my Pun-Pun with another Pun-Pun should I ever decide to build him. He can take an awful lot of cheese and crunch when thrown at him(I've seen some pretty cheesy things thrown at him in the few years I've been playing with him), but he's good at balancing these kinds of things against the party. He is totally fine with characters being extraplanar travelers from the get-go, and is usually how he justifies the Eberron, Faerun, and Oriental Adventures stuff. Oh, and the Dragonlance Core Rulebook, which I love so dearly.

Only complaint is that he doesn't like Tome of Battle. Which makes me cry every night I go to build a character, because I usually build for his setting. :smallfrown:

As far as Pathfinder goes, I've yet to see any GM who bans material for it, but I know everyone is in a gentleman's agreement not to use Summoners, because they bring too much to encounters.

[dangerginger]

First time DM, long time player (of other games). So, the shift in question from "What do you ban?" to "What do you include?" is much more appropriate for me to answer.

I limited everyone to PHB character creation with a point based ability generation. I did this largely for my own sanity as I settled down to re-learn a game that I left many years and 1.75 editions ago. Gradually, singular, specific options and rules are being added from a healthy mix of sources, outside Core and homebrew, either through player interest/request or my own.

It's worked out great for all involved, so far. We're a group largely inexperienced with the particular thing we are doing. Myself, I've played a lot of tabletop rpgs but never ran one. One player has done a lot, a lot, a lot of video game rpging. Other players have little to no experience whatsoever. In our world, keeping everyone sane and on the same page is priority. So, simpler is better.

[Notalion]

(For example, if somebody wanted to have a Dragonmark feat in Faerun, it would have to lose the "house" fluff, but the mechanical effect would be the same).Eehh. This is where it comes down to individual preference, but I feel that 90% of the point of the Dragonmarks are their fluff.
In Eberron, if you have a Dragonmark it informs your entire life. Based on where you are and what mark you have, you could attract anything from a lynch mob to a crowd of admirers. If you don't carry something like that over when you take them to another setting, then what are they? Some fancy inkwork and three SLAs is what.

As long as we're talking Eberron, let's talk about the Drow. FR Drow are subterranean and have a decadent yet sophisticated civilization. Eberron Drow are jungle-dwelling savages. But both types of Drow share a militant xenophobia and worship an evil Arachnid deity. Those commonalities are enough to make both of them recognizably Drow, where without them they'd just be an Elf racial variant with inverted colours.

I suppose I should give an example of fluff that I think can be safely ditched... Off the top of my head, the Chameleon. It isn't setting specific unfortunately, but still. What was the point of all that babble that hamstrings the character with being sucked into a criminal organization but isn't reflected in the mechanics in in any way? Not even a "Prerequisite: Must have been approached by a member of the Mimic Mansion". That can go in a heartbeat.

[Karnith]

If you don't carry something like that over when you take them to another setting, then what are they? Some fancy inkwork and three SLAs is what.
But if someone wanted those things for their character in another setting, wouldn't you let them have it? That it wouldn't be a very good feat doesn't mean that you should ban it.

You don't even need to have the dragonmark along with it; it can just be a feat that gives them some crappy SLAs. There are many, many ways that you could fluff that, and I honestly don't see much of a problem with it.

[Jeff the Green]

Most fast progression spellcasting classes. Ur-priest is weak in the beginning and stupidly powerful once it gets 9th level spells at, what, level 16? Divine Crusader, on the other hand, is probably okay.

Infinite or nigh infinite loops.

Like OverdrivePrime, I don't ban fighter/monk/etc., but I do strongly encourage ToB classes instead. Since I pretty much only play PbP games, that mostly means I don't accept fighters, monks, ninjas, etc. unless the player's doing something particularly clever with them.

A very few things on fluff. In the setting I'm working on, you can't get magic from nature or nature gods, so there are no druids, and artificers are, on pain of death, not allowed to leave a certain area or work for anyone other than the dwarf government.

If I'm using the taint rules, undead and evil outsiders.

[Than]

I like to run on RAI so I like to keep my players to "books that I have".

This does encourage them to get me more books.

[The Boz]

I play and run PF. I ban Rope Trick, allow anything base/core that thematically fits the campaign.
What are some common Pathfinder bans?

[LadyLexi]

I don't really ban, but I say no a lot. Particularly to optional rules I'm not using. I also say no to builds that would ruin the game/make all other players useless.

You can't play a Warblade and use flaws for extra feats and use an item familiar. Why? Because the party is a flat human fighter an elf rogue using a couple of luck feats and a Half-Orc Monk/Drunken Master. You should look for a different group if you want to play that.

[ngilop]

I ban psionics and guns oh and also barbarian but that is becuase they do not exist in world as a class but as a very specific set of feats that a fighter ( for the exact same thing as a barbarian) or even a paladin or wizard can take..

other than that you hjust have to run everything by me and i allow it if it
1)makes sense in my world
2) You aren't going to jerk it up and dominate the game by being OP

So, whne people come to me with eberron stuff i cna say yes to feats and a PrC but no, sorry warforged do not exist.

[Notalion]

But if someone wanted those things for their character in another setting, wouldn't you let them have it? That it wouldn't be a very good feat doesn't mean that you should ban it.

You don't even need to have the dragonmark along with it; it can just be a feat that gives them some crappy SLAs. There are many, many ways that you could fluff that, and I honestly don't see much of a problem with it.Well if they were really so hell-bent on getting three crappy SLAs so utterly devoid of context I'd be tempted to just hand them over without spending a feat on it. Either way they wouldn't be Dragonmarks any more than a bucket of crude oil is a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

[danzibr]

Well, I typically only ban PrC's. Typically Ur-Priest, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Thrallherd, Pyrokineticist, Ruby Knight Vindicator and Initiatiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

[Amnestic]

Well, I typically only ban PrC's. Typically Ur-Priest, Incantatrix, Planar Shepherd, Thrallherd, Pyrokineticist, Ruby Knight Vindicator and Initiatiate of the Sevenfold Veil.

That seems...out of place. I wasn't aware that Pyrokineticist was "overpowered" or "broken" in any way.

[Man on Fire]

In my current Pathfinder game I banned Monk. No, seriously. Ninja and Samurai too. My first player wanted to play Gunslinger and I decided "Okay, I can take it and mix standard fantasy setting with wild west, but eastern elements are out". I preffer when my setting has specific tone and flavor to them and Monk felt anticlimatic.

I also ban spells allowing ressurection spells, atonment and all forms of Wish and similiar spells (aside specific situation), I feel they cheapend the game. Quite frankly, ressurecting people in my world is banned for specific reason.

[Keneth]

I ban nothing. I adjust.

I don't allow 3.P games though, it's either 3.5 or PF. But I don't see that as a ban, really. It's just to protect my sanity.

[CIDE]

In my settings, Pun-Pun explicitly isn't banned; he's already ascended. And since he has an arbitrary amount of Wisdom and Intelligence, he's deduced that he's actually a fictional character in a roleplaying game. He's also decided that the most amusing use of his vast cosmic power is to mess with people who try to break my game. :smallamused:


I like that. I personally used Pun-pun as the basis for at least one of the homebrew deities in my setting. He of course does the same thing. Specifically he acts in ways to prevent others from also becoming another Pun-pun. That said I don't ban it's creation out of character; you just won't succeed in character.


I ban jerks. If you're a jerk, you can't play.


Good rule to have. Using this logic then half of the "My DM/Players are horrible!" threads on here wouldn't exist.



I'm currently running a pretty large pathfinder game. The alchemist and gunslinger classes are banned, because they don't fit the setting. The setting doesn't have much in the way of horses or other mounts, so I discourage the cavalier class.

I understand the gusnlinger but why Alchemist? Even thematically he's not radically different from an arcane spell caster or even something like an Artificer. He still casts the same spells just with more limitations.


I think this thread's question is already biased.

Rather, what should be asked is, "What do you include beyond Core, and why?"

There are resource issues; if you don't own a book, then why would a GM allow something s/he hasn't read?


I can understand that.



In sum, I do not include prestige classes (living memory) from outside of Core or from specific settings (like Red Wizards of Thay). Prestige classes are the results of specific cultural responses to perceived threats; why should the prestige class of a specific culture be available if that culture does not exist in the game world? (These are rhetorical questions btw)

I've had to do this before. Depending on what it is though I would allow a refluffing of certain classes/PrC's if they can come up with something clever. I may have an idea and will help if I know of something from my own world that would help that no players know about yet. It's still up to the player to convince me though.


You're assuming core is not bannable.

That is actually what I would ban, if I ever ended up running a game. No core classes, spells. Feats would be revised. Come to me with a character concept, I'll point you towards a splatbook or (if I can't think of anything) homebrew.


Operating under the knowledge that 90% of the brokenness of D&D is core?


Item Familiars, and evil alignments.

Why to the first one?



Honestly, I think that if you feel you need to ban books for the purpose of preventing people from trying to break the game, your problem isn't the books. That isn't to say that if you think certain books are overpowered even when used in good faith or don't fit your campaign you shouldn't ban them, but sometimes it seems like people see powerful tricks around the internet and immediately ban some part of it to prevent their players from using it. Or they are a DM that doesn't like melee to have nice things and bans ToB.

I couldn't agree more.


I don't really ban, but I say no a lot. Particularly to optional rules I'm not using. I also say no to builds that would ruin the game/make all other players useless.

You can't play a Warblade and use flaws for extra feats and use an item familiar. Why? Because the party is a flat human fighter an elf rogue using a couple of luck feats and a Half-Orc Monk/Drunken Master. You should look for a different group if you want to play that.

I think I just got far too lucky by having a group of regular players that all operate at similar levels of optimization or while more optimized won't play like they're optimized.


Pyrokineticist, Ruby Knight Vindicator....

Why these two?


In my current Pathfinder game I banned Monk. No, seriously. Ninja and Samurai too. My first player wanted to play Gunslinger and I decided "Okay, I can take it and mix standard fantasy setting with wild west, but eastern elements are out". I preffer when my setting has specific tone and flavor to them and Monk felt anticlimatic.


Why monk? Sure, Western monks weren't generally combative but they can be refluffed as such. There were Western martial arts with just as much diversity as Eastern martial arts. And there's plenty of references to religious warriors and "monk-like" warriors in Western society as well (Knight's Hospitaller for example if you ignore the actual D&D class by the same name).

Unless of course you offer alternatives to unarmed fighting classes such as allowing USS.

[tyckspoon]

That seems...out of place. I wasn't aware that Pyrokineticist was "overpowered" or "broken" in any way.

Power Attacking Touch Attacks with a 15-foot inclusive reach weapon that does non-weapon-type damage. The Flame Lash is the primary benefit of Pyrokineticist; the rest of the class is indeed nothing worrisome. It's broken in as much as the normal paradigm for melee is that you strike against normal AC and don't do energy damage... but then many people will argue that the normal paradigm for melee in D&D is dysfunctional anyway, so YMMV and all other standard disclaimers apply.

[BWR]

In my current Pathfinder campaign I have banned everything non-Pf hardcover with one exception: the Ancestral Relic feat from BoED, which was given as a freebie to all characters. I have banned the Alchemist, Summoner, Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai classes, because I don't feel they fit in the setting (Mystara, at least not where the PCs are from), and I put some restrictions on other classes (like Magus being an elf-only class, in keeping with the old system).

Fortunately, all my players are nice enough that I don't really need to ban things in general. Some of it is that they don't look for ways to break the system, some of it is that they are incapable of doing it even if they try.
They can make some good characters and I often feel I have to up the powerlevel a bit to make things challenging, but compared to what I have heard and read about, they really do play the game in the middle of the road, power-wise.

I'm usually very house-rule heavy and they are creeping into this one, but that's more alterations to existing rules rather than outright banning them.

[Trunamer]

I don't really ban, but I say no a lot. Particularly to optional rules I'm not using. I also say no to builds that would ruin the game/make all other players useless.
This sounds amusingly like "I don't smoke, but I inhale a lot." :smalltongue:

[Green Leviathan]

Two words: "Divine Metamagic"

[Averis Vol]

Depends on the op level my game is set at, as the world is basically from left right low to high op, and y current game is run the left most country.

As for overtly banned things....basically planar shepherd and any other obviously abusable material my group might come upon.

[Amnestic]

Power Attacking Touch Attacks with a 15-foot inclusive reach weapon that does non-weapon-type damage. The Flame Lash is the primary benefit of Pyrokineticist; the rest of the class is indeed nothing worrisome. It's broken in as much as the normal paradigm for melee is that you strike against normal AC and don't do energy damage... but then many people will argue that the normal paradigm for melee in D&D is dysfunctional anyway, so YMMV and all other standard disclaimers apply.

Power Attack Touch Attack: Eh, with Shock Trooper stuff they're dumping AC and not losing out in their hit bonus, no? It's nice and all (especially vs. Dragons), but not too bad. Especially for dumping a feat+level on it.
15-foot-inclusive reach weapon: This one's pretty cool but you can't enchant it as far as I know(?). That could be a major downside, I think?
Does non-weapon-type damage: It's Fire though. The most commonly used and commonly resisted. If it was a Acidkineticist or Sonickineticist or something, then yeah, but Pyro? Eh...

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good dip for melee types even with my disagreements, but I definitely don't think it's worth banning, and certainly doesn't belong alongside things like the Iot7V, Ur-Priest and Windicator.

[Eldan]

I'm intrigued. Very intrigued.

My players range from starting optimizers, to those who chose whatever looks awesome.

Okay, not literally "blew up". But, well. Xenotheurges can fail their pseudomagic so hard, they generate negative effects several miles wide around them. This one just so happened to have one that negated most effects of belief.

In Planescape. On the outer planes. In a city that just happens to fly in the void.

After that I changed the side effects of Xenotheurgy to massively smaller radii and banned that one specific ability.

[Boci]

I put some restrictions on other classes (like Magus being an elf-only class, in keeping with the old system).

What if my character concept is a half-elf with a rank in disguise who passed himself off as an elf to learn the magus arts?

What if I was an orhpaned human taken in by elves?

What if my character had seduced/threatened an elf into teaching them the magus arts?

[Notalion]

Okay, not literally "blew up". But, well. Xenotheurges can fail their pseudomagic so hard, they generate negative effects several miles wide around them. This one just so happened to have one that negated most effects of belief.

In Planescape. On the outer planes. In a city that just happens to fly in the void.

After that I changed the side effects of Xenotheurgy to massively smaller radii and banned that one specific ability.So how diffused was the mist of blood that used to be the Xenotheurgist after the Lady was through with him?

[supervillan]

I ban anti-magic field/shell.

This is because I run a (high) fantasy campaign. Magic is the single most powerful force in the multiverse, to the point where any other "technology" is redundant. Magic is what makes the world and the game different, and strange and wonderful. So it's not going to be nerfed by a 6th level spell. Any anti-magic areas that might be encountered in the campaign world are the result of divine intervention or ancient cataclysm, not the doing of an 11th level wizard.

Other than that, I ask my players to let me know ahead of time if they want anything on their characters outside of Core because I want it to fit in with the milieu. This is going to prevent many PrCs simply because there is no reason for them to exist in the campaign world, or no way for a PC in a particular part of the world to acquire the necessary knowledge even when he might have all of the "on paper" prerequisites. One of my players has asked to take levels in Wild Mage, from Complete Arcane. That's fine, he's a Chaotic Good elf wizard so he can experiment away until he unlocks the secrets of wild magic. If the party cleric wants to switch to Ur-priest I'm going to say no, because there is no in-character reason and no in-game method of acquiring the class. In another campaign I might choose otherwise.

[OverdrivePrime]

I understand the gusnlinger but why Alchemist? Even thematically he's not radically different from an arcane spell caster or even something like an Artificer. He still casts the same spells just with more limitations.
Eh, I really just didn't like the mad science flavor of it. It might work for some of the serpentfolk tribes in my world, but not for the PCs. As per my usual, if anyone had a really compelling reason to play one, I'd be open to the discussion.

[Boci]

I ban anti-magic field/shell.

This is because I run a (high) fantasy campaign. Magic is the single most powerful force in the multiverse, to the point where any other "technology" is redundant. Magic is what makes the world and the game different, and strange and wonderful. So it's not going to be nerfed by a 6th level spell. Any anti-magic areas that might be encountered in the campaign world are the result of divine intervention or ancient cataclysm, not the doing of an 11th level wizard.

"anti-magic areas"? Its a spell tied to the mage who cast it. The area is pathetically small and it doesn't last that long. Magic will raign supreme with or without it.

Also, magic is so powerful not that magic cannot stop it is...wierd. Wouldn't that at worst be neutral to magic's overall power?


If the party cleric wants to switch to Ur-priest I'm going to say no, because there is no in-character reason and no in-game method of acquiring the class. In another campaign I might choose otherwise.

What if I was a spellthief whose hatred of the divine was so intense it morphed his ability to manipulate magic?

[Deaxsa]

Two words: "Divine Metamagic"

this is just about the only thing that i will just flat out ban.


everything else is "run it by me" not because i exactly want to ban things, but because i want to A) know what the party is intending to do so i can keep things relevant, and b) ban things if i really need to.

as far as player A overshadowing player B, i only see it as a problem if player A is being mean about it. if player A knows he is stronger, and censors himself (my tripper build maybe should stick to tripping, instead of tripping AND doing more damage than the sword-and-board pally) then i'm perfectly fine, as a DM, if Player A does 200 more damage a hit than player B.

[icefractal]

Not a lot. I mean, 3rd party stuff is reviewed on a case by case basis, not automatically allowed, but I have no general issue with it - it's not like the official material is perfectly balanced anyway. Heck, if a player wants to make something up wholecloth, I'll consider it the same way.

I do reserve the right to ban or modify specific things that cause problems, and I ban infinite or nigh-infinite loops in general. There's probably some stuff I would have to ban if people really tried to exploit it, but so far the only things that have actually come up are:
* Shivering Touch
* Efreet do not have a "Wish" SLA. They "grant wishes" by using their own abilities, enlisting more efreet, and their access to treasuries on the plane of fire.
* Mind Control (the psionic power) does not have the "multiple targets" augmentation. It's already better than Dominate, the multiple targets option makes other Mind-Affecting powers obsolete.
* Do not summon a large number of creatures with several natural attacks each, it makes the game grind to snail-speed. If you're summoning multiple things, they better be "one roll and done", like a Rhino or something.
* Astral Projection would need to work in a different, less insane, way. Nobody's gotten it yet though.

[Eldest]

Operating under the knowledge that 90% of the brokenness of D&D is core?

Somewhat. Also, it's just such a rich variety of options, without even including homebrew (which I'm very open to). And it creates interesting differences. Some classes get certain core spells when they just don't work without them (beguiler is an example that comes to mind), but more importantly there are just fun options out there that aren't played enough. Getting into the air is much more of a challenge without Flight, Overland Flight, and Polymorph, for example.

[Callin]

very few things are banned at the table i play at. Dragon Mag is really the only thing that is blanket banned.

[Aegis013]

It depends on my setting. If I can make a logical in-game construct to ensure that the most powerful options are suicidal and maintain verisimilitude in my world, then I do that.

If I'm running a setting where no in-game construct can exist for whatever reason, then some bans may come down.

Most recently the in-game construct was that the world was a magocracy and the most powerful casters wanted to maintain their power, thus, they made sure that nobody was using particular things that grant significant powers that could potentially be problematic for them. Since they effectively had unlimited resources due to standard Wizard tricks and such, constant scrying made sure nobody was casting Celerity, or summoning outsiders (which was to prevent Efreeti wishes, Pazuzu, Nightmare binding for Astral Projection, and other such tricks, without informing the populace that it could be done), or other stuff.

It was a rather high-op game, and my players loved it, though my Wizard player was still ridiculous compared to the others, no surprise.

I'm not sure how to do it effectively in a non magocracy game, especially controlling casters with full list access such as Cleric. I could use gods as an in-game construct, but I don't like having them be especially active in the world. One appearance in a campaign tops maintains that they are very separate from mere mortals. So in this this situation some things just are banned.

As far as fluff meets crunch, refluffing is encouraged. I'm even willing to deviate a little bit from PrC requirements if I think they aren't appropriate, such as one player wanted to play Seeker of the Song, and for what it offers, that PrC's entry requirements are insane, so I was happy to give him some leeway.

[NotScaryBats]

I think abrupt jaunt is really, really overpowered and after a player asked if he could take it and I actually read the ability I was like "why does this even exist"

[Pickford]

Thread was inspired partially from the discussion here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280333)

Overall, what exactly do you ban as a DM? Why would you ban it? How finnicky are you about setting specific material in other settings or homebrew worlds? Will you work to refluff things?

Personally when I ran a game in my homebrew world I had included even third party material. Several bits and pieces had to be refluffed given the mechanics of the world while in other ways it was still "generic" as a D&D based world. I even allowed one player to use an Everquest D20 Shaman as long as it doesn't break the game.

Generally I wouldn't ban anything. But if I saw a character combination that neither made sense nor was justifiable in a role-play sense, I'd be inclined to introduce that player to the concept of in-game consequences:

i.e. If someone goes crazy with DMM...I would see no problem with having them face clerics/spellcasters sporting dispel magic and willing to use it. Perhaps teach them to have a backup concept rather than being based entirely around a single schtick.

edit: On Abrupt Jaunt...to be fair you have to be a Conjuror. And as an immediate action, it means you can't use it on your enemies next turn anyway, so it's only a temporary reprieve.

[Sylthia]

I'm running a PF campaign right now. I try not to ban too much. Anything in any of the official PF hardcovers is generally fair game. The only things I've banned for now are gunslinger (just doesn't fit in my world and has balance issues) and the Leadership feat (at least you're not allowed to have minions in combat). Having several extra low level characters to manage each encounter brings combat to a snail's pace.

[Boci]

edit: On Abrupt Jaunt...to be fair you have to be a Conjuror. And as an immediate action, it means you can't use it on your enemies next turn anyway, so it's only a temporary reprieve.

Use of an immediate action prevents you from using a swift action next turn. You could still use a second immediate action 1 round later.

[JusticeZero]

I hack big chunks out of core and official additions arbitrarily to fit the campaign setting i'm working on. If I want a wilderness focused setting, I might bar clerics and paladins and wizards and then break the seals on all of the extra options for druids and rangers and barbarians I can get my hands on, for instance.
Anything outside that is banned unless I specifically make an exception for it, and said exception needs it to be both balanced and thematic.

[Jon_Dahl]

I don't ban things.

I permit things.

And the list of the permitted things is rather short.

[Pickford]

Use of an immediate action prevents you from using a swift action next turn. You could still use a second immediate action 1 round later.

Yes, 'after' your opponent next acts. i.e.

Your opponent moves and attacks, you abrupt jaunt...now you can't abrupt jaunt on your opponents next turn.


You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using a swift action for the coming turn)

So as a diagram: Y = Your turn, O = Opponents turn.

Y=Swift action
O=Swift/Immediate on cool down.
Y=cool down up swift/immediate available

O=Immediate action
Y=swift/immediate on cool down
O=swift/immediate on cool down
Y= cool down up swift/immediate available

[Eldest]

Yes, 'after' your opponent next acts. i.e.

Your opponent moves and attacks, you abrupt jaunt...now you can't abrupt jaunt on your opponents next turn.



So as a diagram: Y = Your turn, O = Opponents turn.

Y=Swift action
O=Swift/Immediate on cool down.
Y=cool down up swift/immediate available

O=Immediate action
Y=swift/immediate on cool down
O=swift/immediate on cool down
Y= cool down up swift/immediate available

I do not believe that the immediate action would be unavailible on your opponent's turn, the one bolded part.

Y=Use a swift action.
O=Use an immediate.
Y=Cooldown.
O=Use an immediate.
Y=Cooldown.
O=Use an immediate.
And so on and so forth.

[Skysaber]

Overall, what exactly do you ban as a DM?

Generally speaking? Nothing. I only banned one feat, and then only once.

I find I am far happier, and enjoy a generally more pleasant group, when I simply state ahead of time, "Anything you, as players, use, is open season for the opposition to use as well."

And you know what? I've never had a problem with massive metamagic abuses, trollblooded constructs or fantastically damaging chargers. None of the really abusive stuff do they want to face in their next opponent, so it simply doesn't happen.

[Pickford]

I do not believe that the immediate action would be unavailible on your opponent's turn, the one bolded part.

Y=Use a swift action.
O=Use an immediate.
Y=Cooldown.
O=Use an immediate.
Y=Cooldown.
O=Use an immediate.
And so on and so forth.

Hrm, I'm reading it as: If you used a swift action (must be done on your turn) you can't do an immediate action during your opponents turn. And using an immediate action on your opponents turn is 'like' you used the swift action on your next turn.

Thus it'll be your second turn before the cooldown ends, same as if you had done a swift action on the upcoming turn. (Preventing back to back jaunts during an opponents turn.)

[Czarzian]

In my games only two things are auto-banned.

1) Leadership

2)Planar Shepard

Everything else is on a case by case basis.

[Eldest]

Hrm, I'm reading it as: If you used a swift action (must be done on your turn) you can't do an immediate action during your opponents turn. And using an immediate action on your opponents turn is 'like' you used the swift action on your next turn.

Thus it'll be your second turn before the cooldown ends, same as if you had done a swift action on the upcoming turn. (Preventing back to back jaunts during an opponents turn.)

The bolded part is, I think, false. Think of it this way: you get a single swift or immediate action once every round, with this round being from the end of your turn to the end of your turn.

[Boci]

Yes, 'after' your opponent next acts.

No, the very rules you quoted tie your use of immediates and swift actions to your turn, and make no mention of the opponent's turn factory in.


Hrm, I'm reading it as: If you used a swift action (must be done on your turn) you can't do an immediate action during your opponents turn.

Where are you getting that from? The rules stat the exact opposite: If you use an immediate action, you cannot use a swift action during your next turn. They make no mention of the reverse holding true.

[tadkins]

Not a DM personally, but the DM of my last game banned the following.

-Psionics
-ToB classes (though it was okay to get feats and items so that technically we could get maneuvers, we just couldn't take the classes)
-UA Flaws
-LA races

He also reserved the right to intervene and nerf/ban if a player tried to cheese a character in an obvious way.

[Black Jester]

I Usually have a list of books that are free to use (normally, core, the complete x series, phb II, tome of battle and setting-specific stuff) and treat everything else as optional, requiring GM approval, basically asking the players to make an argument for any extra stuff. I am not too restrictive in this regard (with the exception of new or other races. I just don't like the idea of adding new ones to the game instead of expanding those already present in the setting) but I don't like the mentality of entitlement some players have and it is a lot easier to check stuff beforehand than changing or banning it after the fact.
There are also a few elements I ban outright (mostly spells, like Rope Trick) or which are more complicated to get (again, spells, usually they get a higher spell level, especially flight or teleportation-related ones).

[Kurald Galain]

Overall, what exactly do you ban as a DM? Why would you ban it? How finnicky are you about setting specific material in other settings or homebrew worlds? Will you work to refluff things?

Generally I say that I ban polymorph, and that any non-core material is subject to DM approval (we don't play at such a high level that e.g. Gate becomes an issue). In practice my players are mature enough that this doesn't cause issues, although I have had to veto a bit of early-entry cheese (to Ultimate Magus).

If the campaign is in a clear setting (as opposed to a generic one) then clearly material belonging to other settings is not going to work. For instance, if we play in the Forgotten Realms then you cannot use Dark Sun-specific material. I do not generally approve of refluffing things, because the last time we allowed that some players ended up with stuff like "can I play the stats of a dwarf and pretend to be an elf" which I find troublesome in play.

Along these lines, I generally ban psions (because magic doesn't work that way in the campaign world), some of the more exotic races (because they don't necessarily exist) and factotums (because the class makes zero sense from an in-world perspective). Not that a lot of people want to play these anyway, in my area.

[Gotterdammerung]

Thread was inspired partially from the discussion here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280333)

Overall, what exactly do you ban as a DM? Why would you ban it? How finnicky are you about setting specific material in other settings or homebrew worlds? Will you work to refluff things?

Personally when I ran a game in my homebrew world I had included even third party material. Several bits and pieces had to be refluffed given the mechanics of the world while in other ways it was still "generic" as a D&D based world. I even allowed one player to use an Everquest D20 Shaman as long as it doesn't break the game.

Personally, I am not too threatened by material and also allow both 3rd party and homebrew and even encourage my players to take an active role in shaping their characters through the use of their own homebrew.

If I find a rule or resource that conflicts directly with the story I am trying to tell in a campaign my first response is to diagnose what exactly is causing the snag. If it is an exploitation of poor wording, I add in good wording and responsible grammar to sew up the snafoo. If it was just made by a cheezy designer, I talk with the player to find exactly what they want from the item, and try to compromise something more suitable and balanced. For instance, in one of the campaigns I just finished, I changed simalucrum to only benefit from permanent caster levels (so no temp boosts or magic item CL bumps factored in). The spell still has most of the previous draw, but now can not be abused by temporarily boosting CL into the stratosphere to make a simalucrum of an outrageously powerful creature or outright duplicating a party member. A less experienced or more "trigger happy" DM might just outright BAN HAMMER the spell once he/she learned of the existence of such a trick. I am loathe to outright ban anything.

However, occasionally I do run into moments where wording and compromise can not fix the issue. In those cases, I will not hesitate to simply "cut out the cancer", so to speak.

For instance, I do not allow Planar Shepherd's in my campaigns for many reasons. But mostly because i feel it needs a re-work. However if i spend the time to re-work it, no player will want to play it. Player's want to play that class because of the broke cheezy things it can do, not because of the concept. Since no compromise can be reached I just ban it.

[danzibr]

That seems...out of place. I wasn't aware that Pyrokineticist was "overpowered" or "broken" in any way.
Glad you noticed :). Twas a joke.

In all seriousness, I ban absolutely nothing. My players don't do any cheese and we play at... not very high levels. Max is like 14 or so.

[Alleran]

For the purposes of game balance, banning anything that Tippy uses to optimise his characters is a good start. :smallbiggrin:

[Hyena]

Well, i like it when everything's on table as a player, because that gives you more kinds and shapes of bricks to build your character from; main purpose of having a lot of options, in my mind, is to be able to cherry-pick the ones that better represent whatever you want your character to do, not the ones that let you break the game wide open. Since i dislike double standarts (except when i can use them to my own profit), i also permit everything official (and don't quite explicitly ban homebrew; while i maintain facade of despising it as a deterrent, i'm ready to give it my considerations if they will still decide to ask me about some homebrew stuff). Now there's always a risk of someone going all Pun-Pun (and by "always", i mean "as long as you don't start with banning PHB and everything in it); bans are not quite effective at preventing it. Letting NPCs access to any and all tricks PCs employ (with discrimination, of course; can't expect cheese from a cow, but illithid wizard is supposed to have all optimisation forums memorised) works better. You like to sleep in a ropespace? There are some guys who know their Transdimensional Spell. You have ninth level spells at first level? So does someone else, and guess whom he'll single out as most dangerous party member while monk and fighter shine at their job? You managed to pull a real, honest-to-sarukh, infinite-cheese Pun-Pun? Someone had psionic save-load set up just in case. Now your omnipotence is just a bad dream, and the guy who had that dream is very pissed.
In theory, such an approach will quickly show to any munchkin-wannabe the futility of his attempts. In practice, i haven't yet DMd a player who would give it a serious try, so i can't say much.

Bastard! You lying bastard! That's it, I'm cover for you no more! Ladies and getlemen, I have a bold announcement to make - that man has banned Necropolitan!

[Gotterdammerung]

Bastard! You lying bastard! That's it, I'm cover for you no more! Ladies and getlemen, I have a bold announcement to make - that man has banned Necropolitan!

Wellll, slap my nipples and call me Charlie, we got ourselves a gen-yoo-wine hippo-critter!

Boys, git tha' rope.

[Gwazi Magnum]

For me, normally stuff around the broken levels like Wish spells.

Outside of that I would allow anything as long as it came from a d&d manual. If someone wanted homebrew though I'd need to look at it first.

If something allowed (Wizards or homebrew) though that has proven to be breaking the game and making it enjoyable I would have to speak up and say "This is the issue, we need to fix it some how".

If it was accidental I may just rely on player honor to cut back on it or implement a house rule to keep said thing on a leash. If it was purposely being used to kill the experience however, banned.

[Pickford]

No, the very rules you quoted tie your use of immediates and swift actions to your turn, and make no mention of the opponent's turn factory in.

Where are you getting that from? The rules stat the exact opposite: If you use an immediate action, you cannot use a swift action during your next turn. They make no mention of the reverse holding true.

Boci, turns happen in rounds. So:

If we have 3 people in a combat, Alice, Bob, and Charles, and their initiative counts are: Alice 3, Bob 2, Charles 1 it the rounds will look like this: (after the surprise round)

Round 1:
Alice 3:
Bob 2:
Charles 1:

Round 2:
Alice 3:
Bob 2:
Charles 1:

and so on. The rules state "Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn."

That means if you've used a swift action on your turn, you cannot use an immediate action because they are the same thing. Therefore, if you used a swift action, you can't use an immediate action during the opponents turn in that same round.

So this:

Round 1:
Alice 3: Swift action taken - Bob takes Immediate action
Bob 2: No swift or immediate action can be taken
Charles 1: Immediate action taken

Round 2:
Alice 3: Swift/Immediate action can be taken.
Bob 2: Swift/Immediate action can be taken.
Charles 1: Swift/Immediate action can be taken.


But this is not:

Round 1:
Alice 3: No action taken.
Bob 2: No action taken - Alice takes Immediate action.
Charles 1: No action taken.

Round 2:
Alice 3: Alice tries to take a swift/immediate action <---illegal action.
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: No action taken.


Nor is this:

Round 1:
Alice 3: No action taken. Charles takes an immediate action.
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: Swift/Immediate actions cannot be taken.

Round 2:
Alice 3: No action taken. Charles takes an immediate action <---illegal
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: No action taken.


In both cases the order of the initiative count for the rounds is important. If Alice takes an immediate action 'after' her turn, it impacts her ability to do anything until the turn after her next turn because it's like she used the swift action on her next turn (which is mutually exclusive with doing an immediate action until the turn 'after' her next turn).

Similarly, if Charles takes an immediate action before his turn in round 1, he's blocked from using a swift/immediate action until his turn in the 'next' round, as it's like he used a swift action for the upcoming turn.

[Boci]

The rules state "Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn."

That means if you've used a swift action on your turn, you cannot use an immediate action because they are the same thing.

They are not the same thing. An immediate action on your turn is a swift action, but that's all. The rule you quoted states no further link between the two.



Round 1:
Alice 3: No action taken.
Bob 2: No action taken - Alice takes Immediate action.
Charles 1: No action taken.

Round 2:
Alice 3: Alice tries to take a swift/immediate action <---illegal action.
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: No action taken.

Correct, that is an illegal action.


Round 1:
Alice 3: No action taken. Charles takes an immediate action.
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: Swift/Immediate actions cannot be taken.

Round 2:
Alice 3: No action taken. Charles takes an immediate action <---illegal
Bob 2: No action taken.
Charles 1: No action taken.

Not correct. Its been a round since Charles used an immeidate action. He can take a new one. Why would they chose such a convoluted way of handling the rules and where are you getting this from?

[mattie_p]

It might help, pickford, to reference the definition of a turn. From the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_turn&alpha=T):


The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances.

You get one turn in each round. When it is not your turn, you can do nothing except certain free actions (speaking), non-actions (such as taking an AoO), and immediate actions. Once it is your turn again, you check - did you use an immediate action after my last turn? If yes - you get no swift action this turn. If no - you may take a swift action.

[lord pringle]

If we're allowed to bring anything to the table, so is he

That's my rule. With a few exceptions for absurdly broken combos on a case by case basis.

[Suddo]

As far as Pathfinder goes, I've yet to see any GM who bans material for it, but I know everyone is in a gentleman's agreement not to use Summoners, because they bring too much to encounters.

I had a GM ban Summoners and Gunslingers. He also frowned on dipping (my barbarian died before dipping oracle became a cause for concern).

Edit:

For the purposes of game balance, banning anything that Tippy uses to optimise his characters is a good start. :smallbiggrin:

This is basically true. I think tippy himself once listed like 6 spells he said he would ban and everything else was up in the air.

Edit:
Oh and has anyone actually played a game where Core was banned?

[CaladanMoonblad]

You're assuming core is not bannable.

That is actually what I would ban, if I ever ended up running a game. No core classes, spells. Feats would be revised. Come to me with a character concept, I'll point you towards a splatbook or (if I can't think of anything) homebrew.

So... if you ran a game, there would be no combat system (it's in core), there would be no feat system (it's in core), there would be no skills (it's in core), there would be no saving throws (it's in core), there would be commoners, no aristocrats, no warriors, no humans, elves, dwarves, half-orcs, halflings, etc. It's all in core. It would no longer be d20 rpg.

Wow. Not a really fun game IMO. Not a game at all, in fact.

[Pickford]

It might help, pickford, to reference the definition of a turn. From the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_turn&alpha=T):

You get one turn in each round. When it is not your turn, you can do nothing except certain free actions (speaking), non-actions (such as taking an AoO), and immediate actions. Once it is your turn again, you check - did you use an immediate action after my last turn? If yes - you get no swift action this turn. If no - you may take a swift action.

Thank you mattie_p.

This just demonstrates what I said.

An immediate action precludes a swift action, because it is like taking a swift action off-turn. Therefore a swift action precludes taking an immediate action until the next time a swift action can be taken. (i.e. both actions trigger both cooldowns)

[Boci]

So... if you ran a game, there would be no combat system (it's in core), there would be no feat system (it's in core), there would be no skills (it's in core), there would be no saving throws (it's in core), there would be commoners, no aristocrats, no warriors, no humans, elves, dwarves, half-orcs, halflings, etc. It's all in core. It would no longer be d20 rpg.

Wow. Not a really fun game IMO. Not a game at all, in fact.

I believe its implied that the essential functions of the game would not be banned, since they are not options, and we are discussing the banning of options.

[Boci]

Therefore a swift action precludes taking an immediate action until the next time a swift action can be taken.

No, because the rules don't say that. It works one way (immediate = no swift), but unless the rules state that it works the other way, a swift action won't prevent an immidiate action.

Basically:
Charles uses an immediate action, his turn happens, he cannot use a swift action. When his turn is over, he can now use an immediate action as he's had a new turn since his last immeidate action.

[Karnith]

I believe its implied that the essential functions of the game would not be banned, since they are not options, and we are discussing the banning of options.
Combat is unbalanced, we should ban it.

More seriously, it's blindingly obvious what Eldest meant, especially since he explicitly said:

No core classes, spells. Feats would be revised.
And I would totally do that for a game, too, except I'd extend the ban to PHB races, too. And possibly Monster Manual monsters, as well.

[Pickford]

No, because the rules don't say that. It works one way (immediate = no swift), but unless the rules state that it works the other way, a swift action won't prevent an immidiate action.

Basically:
Charles uses an immediate action, his turn happens, he cannot use a swift action. When his turn is over, he can now use an immediate action as he's had a new turn since his last immeidate action.

Boci:

Swift Action - SpC pg.4

you can perform only a single swift action per turn

Immediate Action - SpC pg. 4

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn.

1) Thus, if a swift action is used, it's impossible to use an immediate action till the next turn as they count for the same thing.

2) As the Immediate action counts as a swift action, if it is used, the swift action 'has been used'.

Combine those two rules with this:

You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not your turn.

To mean:
3) If you use an immediate action before your turn, because of the effects from points 1 & 2 it counts as if you had used a swift action 'on' your turn, which precludes immediate action until your 'next' turn.

4) If you use an immediate action after your turn (in which you could not use a swift action, or the immediate would be impossible) it precludes the use of a swift action or immediate action until 'after' your next turn. (i.e. you can't use a swift action on the preceding turn from the round count, nor the following)

[Boci]

1) Thus, if a swift action is used, it's impossible to use an immediate action till the next turn as they count for the same thing.

2) As the Immediate action counts as a swift action

Check the rule you just quoted. That only holds ture if you use an immediate action during your turn. If you use one out of your turn (the normal use for immeidate actions), that rule would not apply.

[TentacleSurpris]

I ban any kind of template. Templates are printed in monster books, and no explicit rules exist for applying them to PCs. Even the level adjustment rules are hazily when you try to apply them to PCs (if you apply one to a character during play, does his experience total increase to the level required by his new ECL, or does he have to earn XP to "pay off" the template? If so, at what ECL is he considered for awarding xp? These questions aren't answered). They're in chapters labelled "monsters" or books about monsters, which are not PCs.

Of course Leadership is banned.

StP Erudite, and just any crap I don't like. Savage Species is horribly written and should be burned, not banned. Seriously, David Eckelberry, Rich Redman and Jennifer Clark Wilkes (authors) need to be taken out behind a barn and shot (I mean their characters should be shot. I don't advocate violence against anyone). There's a reason I don't see them credited on any of the good d20 books.

I tepidly allowed a Warblade this last campaign, but for the sake of seeing how it worked I nerfed its recharge mechanic to require a standard action of no attacks. I would never allow the Crusader; seriously, he gets EIGHT special abilities at 1st level.

[Pickford]

Check the rule you just quoted. That only holds ture if you use an immediate action during your turn. If you use one out of your turn (the normal use for immeidate actions), that rule would not apply.

No. Each sentence of the text is not a unique and unrelated universe, they are taken together to describe how the game operates.

Back to the topic:
Although it's obviously an extra rule and not normally included, I'd call shenanigans on any flaw that has no impact on the character.

i.e. Noncombatant for wizards; Shaky for Samurai.

[Eldest]

So... if you ran a game, there would be no combat system (it's in core), there would be no feat system (it's in core), there would be no skills (it's in core), there would be no saving throws (it's in core), there would be commoners, no aristocrats, no warriors, no humans, elves, dwarves, half-orcs, halflings, etc. It's all in core. It would no longer be d20 rpg.

Wow. Not a really fun game IMO. Not a game at all, in fact.

I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. No classes, no spells (with some exceptions), revised feats. I'd ban the races, yes. But please don't take a cheap shot at something that I thought everyone would intuitively understand and so left it out: yes, the core rules would be kept. Saving throws would still exist. So would full attacks.

But no half-orcs, half-elves, halflings, humans, aristocrats, commoners, fighters, rangers. No assassins, archmages, an as-yet-undetermined number of magic items from the DMG are out. If your enjoyment of the game requires the king to have levels in aristocrat, I am not the one you want GMing the game.

[Boci]

No. Each sentence of the text is not a unique and unrelated universe, they are taken together to describe how the game operates.


It is a single sentance:

"Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn."

If the bolded clause does not apply, then neither does the rule.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Leadership. And I soft-ban Animate Dead, Summon spells, and any other stuff that puts lots of extra characters only the field-- I've tended to have rather large groups, and high-level combat takes long enough as-is. Apart from that, I'm going to want to look at the classes and stuff you're using*, but if I'm playing with you, you're probably my friend and I trust you not to break my game.

Setting stuff is its own thing, and we'll talk about how to fit it into my world.

*Preferably stuff I own or stuff I've homebrewed, but I'm willing to take ten minutes and look at anything new.

[rexreg]

The group I DM/play with has been meeting for 15-ish years. Some of us started playing from the pink box.

Nothing is banned, but it is considered polite to run new stuff by the DM before using it. Usually this involves mentioning your plans as a player to the DM &, if he requests, sending the DM a copy of the new Feat/Class/etc. Denial almost never happens, but I, personally, don't like being blindsided by unknown rules in the middle of a combat.

If I am unsure how something will affect game balance, I have been known to say I'll allow something provisionally for a session...I seem to remember saying no only once after provisionally allowing something.

All 3rd party is allowable. All PF is allowable, but we state at the start of a campaign whether we are using 3.5 or PF Feat progression (ie. new Feats every 2 or 3 levels)

If you want to come up with homebrew, run it by me & we can make it work. Some of my favourite gaming experiences have been with homebrew (Bungggg!!!! the Uncaring, Disciple of Boccob).

If I can't handle what the players throw at me (& they are an inventive bunch)...well, this has yet to happen.

All the above being said, I've found Warforged don't translate well to other campaigns thematically & have said no to that race...not because it's OP, but because it doesn't make sense in a Greyhawk campaign, for example.

As an aside, while it hasn't been banned, we have a gentleman's agreement to not use Leadership-type Feats; too much bookwork...if you don't use it in my campaign, I promise to not use it in yours...

D&D/PF is a game of 'yes', not of denial.

[Pickford]

It is a single sentance:

"Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn."

If the bolded clause does not apply, then neither does the rule.

Here, let me bold the sentence immediately following, I'll even provide the whole quote so you can see in one place:


Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn.

[Boci]

Here, let me bold the sentence immediately following, I'll even provide the whole quote so you can see in one place:

Yes, so:
Alice's turn, Charles uses an immediate action
Charles's turn, he cannot use an immediate or swift action
Alice's turn, Charles uses an immediate action

Since Charles had a turn between hius two immediate actions, he broke no rules.

You just quoted the rules that support that. Please tell me you understand now

[mattie_p]

Pickford, you are missing an essential portion of immediate actions that is present in the SRD:


(effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn)

[Trasilor]

I don't ban anything in my game.

However, there are some caveats. If the players wants something that completely goes against the setting - then I say no. However, I talk to my players, to see why they wanted that something (prereq for a PC, cool trick, etc). Then, I try to point the player in the direction of something that would fit that role.

I love a good refluff/homebrew that fits well with my worlds. I find that this helps the players become more immersed in the game when they are part of its creation.

I have never had a ban anything due to OP/breaking the game.

EDIT: Although I may ban Swift and Immediate actions :smallamused:

[Pickford]

Pickford, you are missing an essential portion of immediate actions that is present in the SRD:

Ah, you mean if one uses a swift action, they can then use an immediate action 'after', but that blocks a swift action/immediate action only up to the next turn?

[mattie_p]

Ah, you mean if one uses a swift action, they can then use an immediate action 'after', but that blocks a swift action/immediate action only up to the next turn?

Essentially, yes. I believe that is the consensus.

[Pickford]

Essentially, yes. I believe that is the consensus.

So, how is:

Bob: Swift Action spell + Immediate Action spell (which I think we agree isn't allowed)

functionally different than

Bob: Swift Action spell
Marie: (Bob casts Immediate Action spell, interrupting Marie) Marie Acts.

(which we're saying the consensus thinks 'is' allowed)?

[tyckspoon]

Ah, you mean if one uses a swift action, they can then use an immediate action 'after', but that blocks a swift action/immediate action only up to the next turn?

Yes. You use a Swift, that takes up the Swift/Immediate for the current turn. You end your turn- you now are allowed to use an Immediate, because you have ended your turn. That takes up your Swift allotment for your next turn.. but once that turn comes around and you do whatever, you end your turn, and now you can use an Immediate again. Or if you want to have your Swift available, you refrain from the Immediate and use the Swift when your turn comes up next time..

Your previous examples sound like you were conflating a 'turn' - a given character's individual location within the initiative order- and a 'round' - the entire set of initiatives in a combat (1 round has passed when all initiatives have been processed and everybody has taken their turn), and treating the restrictions on Swift/Immediate as if they were by round instead of turn. That would result in having to wait for *everybody* to go again before you could use another Swift or Immediate action instead of just the individual character acting again.

[Boci]

Ah, you mean if one uses a swift action, they can then use an immediate action 'after', but that blocks a swift action/immediate action only up to the next turn?

Yes, so in conclusion: Abrupt Jaunt (which started this whole thing) is even more broken than you thought it was.

[mattie_p]

So, how is:

Bob: Swift Action spell + Immediate Action spell (which I think we agree isn't allowed)

functionally different than

Bob: Swift Action spell
Marie: (Bob casts Immediate Action spell, interrupting Marie) Marie Acts.

(which we're saying the consensus thinks 'is' allowed)?

It is in no way functionally different - other than the rules allow the second and not the first.

[Boci]

It is in no way functionally different - other than the rules allow the second and not the first.

Actually it is: in the disbared example, the immiedate action spell cannot be used to disrupt marie's actions.

But yeah, the reason the first isn't allowed is because Bob is using the immediate action during his turn, which places restrictions that normally do not apply to immediate actions.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What do I ban?

Players who abuse the system, of course.

Look, it's fairly trivial to break the system, no matter how you try to limit it. There's always some loophole you forgot to close which they can exploit.

The problem is in the individual who is willing to break the game and ruin everyone else's fun in the process. Get rid of the bad player, and the game can continue.

[eggynack]

What do I ban?

Players who abuse the system, of course.

Look, it's fairly trivial to break the system, no matter how you try to limit it. There's always some loophole you forgot to close which they can exploit.

The problem is in the individual who is willing to break the game and ruin everyone else's fun in the process. Get rid of the bad player, and the game can continue.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The tier system is generally a measurement of power at similar optimization levels. Therefore, if you have one guy playing a fighter, and the other a druid, and they're both power gamers to the same degree, then the druid is likely to break the game. You don't need to have a desire to harm the balance of the game in order to do so, and "good" players often find themselves obsoleting low tier classes, just because they happened to find one of the more broken spells in the game. I don't think it's right to rely on player volition to keep the game in check. When players start using crazy combos to gain infinite spells of every kind, that's something worth kicking out of the game unless that's the kind of game it is. There's a lower, more reasonable, level of optimization which regular folks can gain access to. There's definitely something to be said for constructing a game in which balance is intrinsic to the system, rather than something that needs to be built through gentleman's agreements.

[Malroth]

Spells, abilities, templates and classes that grant immunity to something.

[supervillan]

"anti-magic areas"? Its a spell tied to the mage who cast it. The area is pathetically small and it doesn't last that long. Magic will raign supreme with or without it.

Also, magic is so powerful not that magic cannot stop it is...wierd. Wouldn't that at worst be neutral to magic's overall power?


Sure magic can stop magic: I have no problems with counterspelling, dispelling, break enchantment and so forth. Just with a mere sixth level spell nullifying all magic. It's not that short a duration either, at nearly 2 hours when it first becomes available. Add the possibility of a 14th level sorcerer Extending the spell and you can quite easily create moderately high level gish capable of running through a dungeon with AMF available 12 hours per day (so, whenever he's not up a rope trick). No thank you.

Also, lots of posters have said perfectly sensible things here about running the kind of game the group wants to play. I think that's the most straightforward approach.:smallsmile:

[Jeff the Green]

What do I ban?

Players who abuse the system, of course.

Look, it's fairly trivial to break the system, no matter how you try to limit it. There's always some loophole you forgot to close which they can exploit.

The problem is in the individual who is willing to break the game and ruin everyone else's fun in the process. Get rid of the bad player, and the game can continue.

The problem is that it's easy to break the game unintentionally, and more so with some things than others. Ur-priest has fantastic flavor, for instance, but probably makes you weaker when you first enter while getting 9th-level cleric spells at level 14 is going to break the game no matter the player's intent. Your spells are too powerful for correctly CR'd enemies but your saves, HD, etc. are too low for higher CR'd enemies.

I mean, a particularly good DM can deal with differing tiers, by buffing weak classes and asking spellcasters to turn it down or focus on being party-friendly, but some things are so badly designed that that's almost impossible.

And on that note, Truenamer.


Spells, abilities, templates and classes that grant immunity to something.

That seems like a bad idea, given that you basically have to have immunity to death effects once you reach higher levels. The game just kind of assumes you have it, or at least access to it.

[JaronK]

What I ban in my games changes from game to game, depending on the feel I want for the world. Sometimes you can only play as commoners. Sometimes, I'll pick a specific power level I want. Sometimes I bad specific spells. It really depends... there's so many possibilities.

JaronK

[Boci]

Sure magic can stop magic: I have no problems with counterspelling, dispelling, break enchantment and so forth. Just with a mere sixth level spell nullifying all magic. It's not that short a duration either, at nearly 2 hours when it first becomes available. Add the possibility of a 14th level sorcerer Extending the spell and you can quite easily create moderately high level gish capable of running through a dungeon with AMF available 12 hours per day (so, whenever he's not up a rope trick). No thank you.

I don't think that a tactics which involves a character capable of casting 7th level spell to volinterilly rob themselves of all spellcasting and supress their magical items is one to worry about. Not to mention how good can a gish get without dropping caster level, meaning they need to be higher than 11th level, meaning they will get massacred that much more by the monsters they are entering melee with, who do not care aboiut an anti magic field.


Also, lots of posters have said perfectly sensible things here about running the kind of game the group wants to play. I think that's the most straightforward approach.:smallsmile:

I just don't see how a single, situational spell Iin that it is very powerful but also penalizes the user) would ruin the feeling of the setting you were going for. Not to mention your previous paragraph focused more on balance issues then tone.

[Man on Fire]

Why monk? Sure, Western monks weren't generally combative but they can be refluffed as such. There were Western martial arts with just as much diversity as Eastern martial arts. And there's plenty of references to religious warriors and "monk-like" warriors in Western society as well (Knight's Hospitaller for example if you ignore the actual D&D class by the same name).

Unless of course you offer alternatives to unarmed fighting classes such as allowing USS.

He just felt out of place in settign that took a lot from Earthdawn, Deadlands and Warhammer, he would look silly next to cowboy and elf. Heck, cowboy and elf needed some work on my side to not look silly, I decided adding yet another flavor would be too much. And pathinder Monk, with hsi Ki pool is, qhuite frankly, too much work to refluff (it already took some job to refluff paladin and cleric as I dont use gods either. I also quickly refluffed psionics [you're a wizard, these points are called mana] but nobody uses them anyway. I'll rpobably ignore them and give to BBEG's group to make them more alien).

There was a guy who wanted to play unarmed combatant, but he also wanted to make barbarian, so I just pointed him to specific archetype. he was suppoed to be guy who participates in brawl tornaments for money. Sadly, he had to give up the game. And when I needed to make unarmed combatant npc I picked Brawler Fighter.

Don't get me wrong, I love Monk, I'm playign one myself, but in all-monk campaing. Generally I often feel he is anticlimatic. If we woudl be playing anime-themed game or game in Eastern themes*, Monk would be allowed alongside Gunslinger without problem. But we aren't and I just don't see him in world I'm running.

* - Through, to be honest, if I'm going to run such game, it will be in Legend of Five Rings.

[Treblain]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but Sword of the Arcane Order is something I would always ban even though I'm well aware that it's not 'unbalanced' compared to T1 and such. It just doesn't make sense.

Along the same lines, I would never allow Natural Spell, at least in its current form. "Hey, let's make it so druids have an interesting gameplay dichotomy between wildshaping and casting, and then basically remove that limitation one level later!"

I've heard of bans on Craven, and while I wouldn't necessarily ban it universally, I do think it's a jarringly blatant example of min-maxing.

[Boci]

If we woudl be playing anime-themed game

Just because I believe that if it is pointed out enough times people will learn: anime is a medium, no a genre. You are presumable referring to the shounen or seinen anime, which would actually set some details about the game in question. Like "an action film inspired game" vs "a film inspired game".

[Man on Fire]

Just because I believe that if it is pointed out enough times people will learn: anime is a medium, no a genre. You are presumable referring to the shounen or seinen anime, which would actually set some details about the game in question. Like "an action film inspired game" vs "a film inspired game".

I was rather thinking of that specific aesthetics of many fantasy anime, which can sink in basically anything and make it work together. And which, I belive, happens across different genres, that's why I wasn't specific.

[Boci]

I was rather thinking of that specific aesthetics of many fantasy anime, which can sink in basically anything and make it work together. And which, I belive, happens across different genres, that's why I wasn't specific.

The word anime is not going to reliably convey that though. I didn't know you meant that, and I would hazard that would be the case for most.

[CombatOwl]

In PF? Uhh... Gloves of Shaping are about the only paizo material I ban, and that's because they make any dungeon a ludicrously simply proposition (just "locate object" on whatever you're trying to find and dig straight lines to collect it).

In 3.5e? "Builds" of any sort--characters who take feats they've never had cause to learn (for example, a feat unrelated to what they've been doing so far, or which they've never even seen demonstrated), or who take PrCs that they've never found training for, etc. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is out simply because players will never encounter an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil to teach them the PrC.

[Boci]

In 3.5e? "Builds" of any sort--characters who take feats they've never had cause to learn (for example, a feat unrelated to what they've been doing so far, or which they've never even seen demonstrated), or who take PrCs that they've never found training for, etc. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is out simply because players will never encounter an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil to teach them the PrC.

What if a player wanted to explore the link between spontenous and prepared arcane magic through the Ultimate Magus PrC?

What if they liked the sound of incarnum, but used a build from the internet to help them deal with a relativly complex system their first time round?

If this style of DMing suits your group then everything is dandy, but it sounds like you may be ruling out some potentially fun builds for everyone at the table unneccissarily.

[Lord Haart]

Bastard! You lying bastard! That's it, I'm cover for you no more! Ladies and getlemen, I have a bold announcement to make - that man has banned Necropolitan!
Sacrilege! Thou shalt not repeatest this lie, thou lying liar! I have proof that i had, in fact, explicitly permitted thee to takest an eponimous template and to beginst the game as a pile of unrevivable dust, as befitted thy starting level!

[Boci]

Sacrilege! Thou shalt not repeatest this lie, thou lying liar! I have proof that i had, in fact, explicitly permitted thee to takest an eponimous template and to beginst the game as a pile of unrevivable dust, as befitted thy starting level!

Assuming this isn't just a continued joke, you didn't allow necropolitant because of the level reduction it comes with? That's a pretty annoying rule, especially since then logicially that means a PC could start as half dragon, if the initial hitdie is more important than the final result.

Surely a better way to handle it would have been to allow the template, under the assumption that the PC had been level 2 previously.

[Lord Haart]

Assuming this isn't just a continued joke, you didn't allow necropolitant because of the level reduction it comes with? That's a pretty annoying rule, especially since then logicially that means a PC could start as half dragon, if the initial hitdie is more important than the final result.
Well, Necropolitan deduces a level, then it deduces a thousand more xp and if result isn't positive, it explicitly dusts the character. That's how this particular template with its quirky not-really-LA is ruled. Didn't quite get the half-dragon comparison; half-dragon would got shafted in that particular game, too (unless i'd be asked politely to find a compromise, which Hyena isn't proficient with) but for different reason — half-dragon would push LA too high to start with any HD on ECL given, while necropolitan reduced ECL to below one, making it impossible to exist.

[Boci]

Well, Necropolitan deduces a level, then it deduces a thousand more xp and if result isn't positive, it explicitly dusts the character. That's how this particular template with its quirky not-really-LA is ruled. Didn't quite get the half-dragon comparison; half-dragon would got shafted in that particular game, too (unless i'd be asked politely to find a compromise, which Hyena isn't proficient with) but for different reason — half-dragon would push LA too high to start with any HD on ECL given, while necropolitan reduced ECL to below one, making it impossible to exist.


See this is my problem with it: your ruling is not consistent.
In the half dragon example, you first take ECL of the character, then add the modifications from the template, making sure the final ECL is equal to the party's starting ECL. Fair enough.
But the necropolitant, you take party's starting ECL first, and then work backwards adding the template. Your aproach is inconsistent.

[NotScaryBats]

A level 1 character who attempts to undergo the Ritual of Crucimigration would not survive the ordeal. A level 2 character also wouldn't survive, depending on the circumstances.

I think that's the argument.

[Boci]

A level 1 character who attempts to undergo the Ritual of Crucimigration would not survive the ordeal. A level 2 character also wouldn't survive, depending on the circumstances.

I think that's the argument.

I get the argument, I'm just saying I can see why it would be annoying to hear that as a PC. Why couldn't the DM just assume I was in a circamstance that left me as a 1st level character after the aplication of the tamplate?

[Arael666]

So... 4 pages in, and no DM ban DMM persist?

[Jeff the Green]

So... 4 pages in, and no DM ban DMM persist?

Someone said it. Personally I don't care. The only way to make most metamagic work is with a reducer of some sort, and DMM is the only decent divine method.

[Pickford]

So... 4 pages in, and no DM ban DMM persist?

Dispel magic for the win?

[eggynack]

Eh, a ring of counter spelling naming dispel magic isn't too expensive. Still, I think that nightstick stacking is a more common ban than DMM persist. Nightstick stacking is crazy.

[Balldanor]

I asked players to choose races from the PhB and PHII, and asked for no psionics, but it's also the first game I ever DM'd. Now that I've done a little bit, I'm good with pretty much anything reasonable.

However, I was talking with a guy in my group today about Magic Jar... I don't think I'd make it available in my game in a spellbook or on a scroll; if a wizard decides that he wants to use it as a spell, I won't prevent it, but I wouldn't provide it as a DM. There might be a few others but not sure off the top of my head right now.

[Jeff the Green]

Eh, a ring of counter spelling naming dispel magic isn't too expensive. Still, I think that nightstick stacking is a more common ban than DMM persist. Nightstick stacking is crazy.

See, I don't think that even counts as a ban. It falls under multiple bonuses from the same source.

[eggynack]

See, I don't think that even counts as a ban. It falls under multiple bonuses from the same source.
It's pretty ambiguous I think. I could make an argument about it, but I don't see the point. If it's a thing, then it's a ban, if it's not, then it's a ruling. I suppose that it all depends on perspective.

[korrgekk]

I don't ban anything outright. Certain campaigns I'll limit what races and classes are playable (mostly to annoy my players :smallbiggrin: ). Certain players however are not allowed to make certain races/classes. One player is completely banned from rogues, monks and paladins. Rogues are all played as greedy scaredy-cats( he's made about 4) and he simply can not play a monk or paladin correctly. Otherwise, everything is fair game to anyone unless i simply don't want it in my campaign.

[Emperor Tippy]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241019

That's what I tend to ban when I am inclined to ban anything without trying for something specific. I tailor my ban list for the specific game I'm DMing and it can be anything from "No Pun-Pun" to "This is your race and class, all magic items are banned."

[ShriekingDrake]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261219) may be useful there. One of my groups has adopted this list quite well. As you can see there are lots of opinions about whether or not to ban things. My recommendation is to decide as a group what, if anything, from the rules you want banned and modified, if you've had issues come up that distract from the joy of the game. I play in several groups. One group wanted more detail about what spell did or did not exist (we're currently thinking about which spells to fix in addition to those we banned) and we use the spells in the link at the beginning of this post. My other groups don't want/need it. Ban and fix what works for you and your group.

As an aside, we've had no fall out from the banning of the linked list of spells. It's been great.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Generally speaking our group doesn't ban (official D&D 3.5) content. We just know that if a particular PC is dominating the game, and there's no way to stop that PC while empowering the others, then either we'll put that PC on a bus or we'll switch games.

Basically, I've never seen a system, let alone a 3.5 banlist, where these two properties hold:
(1) It's mechanically balanced no matter how the players choose to make/play their characters.
(2) I'd want to play that system.

Not to say they're directly opposed, but it ends up happening that way.

[rexreg]

Linguistics

[Krobar]

As DM, I ban throwing dice at me and yelling "MAGIC MISSILE! MAGIC MISSILE! MAGIC MISSILE!"

That actually happened once. We're all pretty mature for being in our 40's.

[Chaosvii7]

Bastard! You lying bastard! That's it, I'm cover for you no more! Ladies and getlemen, I have a bold announcement to make - that man has banned Necropolitan!

Necropolitan is probably one of the most balanced templates in the game, though. Especially considering that Turn Resistance isn't useful if it's under +4, and it has a realistic cost for a fair balance of power.

I don't think I'd come to ban anything at all - not because it makes things easier, but because it's easy to punish those who try and break the game with their own medicine. Also, so sue me if I wanted to play a game where all of the NPCs are Rainbow Warsnakes. :smallredface:

It's also all about who you play with - some people, you may feel perfectly comfortable leaving everything open. I do discourage people who play to the same archetype every time, to encourage dynamic character designs. Some people - you will never let them touch Serpent Kingdoms for fear of them actually making Pun-Pun.

Legally Blonde quotes? Now we're in my kind of crowd. :smallcool:

[ericp65]

Currently, I ban gestalt and Factotum, but nearly nothing else.

[eggynack]

Currently, I ban gestalt and Factotum, but nearly nothing else.
I don't really think gestalt is a thing you ban. It's essentially a variant rule which either everyone gets access to, or no one does. There's the tier balancing system that makes use of gestalts with low tiered classes, but that's as far from official as it gets, and is pretty specific. How come factotum though? They're sweet.