Banned Handbook?

[CyberThread]

Who thinks we need to make a banned handbook , for things that are gamebreaking and ruin other folks fun?

[Kornaki]

This is way too subjective to be meaningful

[SowZ]

Some people will ban infinite loops and tricks, others will ban DMM and Natural Spell, others will go as far as to ban entire schools of magic or classes. What is your goal with the ban list? To ban things that are just plain too strong or things that have clear and easy exploits?

[sonofzeal]

Who thinks we need to make a banned handbook , for things that are gamebreaking and ruin other folks fun?
Test of Spite banlist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8399975&postcount=2).

[Setra]

Test of Spite banlist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8399975&postcount=2).
Fighter is banned, that seems... odd.

[TuggyNE]

Fighter is banned, that seems... odd.

That, and a few other changes, were presumably made to shore up excessively-weak classes/builds.

[ericgrau]

This is way too subjective to be meaningful
This.

The only things that every group should absolutely ban are infinite loops and similar craziness. And those are so obvious you don't need a handbook.

If I were to DM the first thing I'd ban would be almost all X to Y substitution for being impossible to balance, while in these forums there's an entire guide on it.

[MukkTB]

Almost all of us can agree on infinite loops and "I win" tricks like Pun Pun. From there it becomes extremely subjective. The border is especially terrible. I don't take leadership in my group because I generally play tier 3 and have the most optimized character. The rest of my group tends to play tier 4 or lower, don't use tier 1 and 2 to their potential, and aren't too optimized. When they take leadership, it isn't much of a problem.

Dragonwrought Kobold is another fine example. It's cheesy, but some groups use it just fine. Any handbook or guide on the subject would have to cover: things that cause the game to explode, a detailed explanation of the gentlemen's agreement, a discussion of core vs non-core, an essay on the "Fighters can't have nice things," mentality, explanations on many borderline cases, a discussion of multiclassing, dipping, and prestige classes, and links to the tier system guides with an explanation that low tier characters can make up ground using questionable things

That actually sounds like a fun project. I'm tempted to start.

[Saintheart]

All seriousness, this would be a nice, nice tool for novice-to-middling DMs to rein in or prepare for players rocking up with Builds Off Teh Internet at the very least. Anything that helps the DM make a better game is a good thing -- and restricting options is a good thing, because the overwhelming majority of people flourish under limits, not unbounded freedom.

Call me interested, intrigued, and watching.

[sonofzeal]

All seriousness, this would be a nice, nice tool for novice-to-middling DMs to rein in or prepare for players rocking up with Builds Off Teh Internet at the very least. Anything that helps the DM make a better game is a good thing -- and restricting options is a good thing, because the overwhelming majority of people flourish under limits, not unbounded freedom.

Call me interested, intrigued, and watching.
Again, I highly recommend the Test of Spite Banlist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8399975&postcount=2) as the most cohesive such resource you're ever likely to see. It contains some things that are only problematic in an arena context, and a few fixes that may not match your particular game (all Clerics are Cloistered, all Fighters are Dungeoncrasher, etc), but a bit of common sense can deal with that. If you're worried about something, look it up there; if it's something most DMs wouldn't want in their game, it's probably mentioned somewhere.

[Jon_Dahl]

Call me interested, intrigued, and watching.

Me too. I have an extensive ban list and I'm curious if someone can improve it.

[Amphetryon]

That, and a few other changes, were presumably made to shore up excessively-weak classes/builds.

Exactly right. It was done to eliminate a couple of "trap" options within that particular PvP environment.

[BowStreetRunner]

Every time I see a 'banned' list online, I am always surprised to see included something that I never thought was capable of being abused. My own opinion is that many of the 'broken' races, classes, feats, spells and so forth are not broken at all. Rather, they are the victim of equivocation - some level or poor writing and/or poor understanding of the game mechanics has led players and GMs to use them in a way that was never intended. Because of this, the entire list of 'broken' elements of the game would be entirely subjective, based on the rules interpretations in use by each gaming group.

[Amphetryon]

Every time I see a 'banned' list online, I am always surprised to see included something that I never thought was capable of being abused. My own opinion is that many of the 'broken' races, classes, feats, spells and so forth are not broken at all. Rather, they are the victim of equivocation - some level or poor writing and/or poor understanding of the game mechanics has led players and GMs to use them in a way that was never intended. Because of this, the entire list of 'broken' elements of the game would be entirely subjective, based on the rules interpretations in use by each gaming group.

"Intended" use is often very difficult to pin down, especially in light of a lack of clarification of the RAW and certain designers (possibly post-facto) comments about "Ivory Tower Design theory." What your group perceives as an abusive reading of a given spell is another group's black letter RAW.

[HurinTheCursed]

I don't see how it would be possible ton make an all-purpose ban-list except with loops.
Each group will accept a different power level, disparity level, some will allow one trick ponies. Why ban something if SOME people find it fun ?

In the campaign in which I play, most fights are easy and some are really hard. I don't play my character to its full power while it's not needed. I believe an optimized T1 character in a T4 group would not be problematic in most groups if the T1 player makes the effort of not overshadowing all the party or to make all encounters too easy.

Futhermore, you could want to ban something to a player whose character is too strong for your taster but allow it for the one playing the the weakest character

[Soranar]

I especially like what the spite list does to spellcasting

abjuration and enchantment becomes one and the same (hello abjurant champion)

but evocation gets teleportation (suddenly banning schools is not nearly as simple as it used to be)

no more wish + the other usually banned stuff

great work overall, not perfect but it's certainly a lot better than standard 3.5

banning lightning maces seems odd (never understood the melee hate) until you remember that this is for arena combat so it makes sense

and the limit to actions per round should mitigate some of the worst builds (though 3 standard actions per round is still a lot)

[angry_bear]

Not sure if I'd ban any specific classes or anything like that but, stuff like infinite loops, a caster knowing wish. These things I typically ban.

I used to ban Psionics, but now I just quietly curse the player under my breath when he says he rolled up a Psion... I'm growing as a GM. lol

[Mithril Leaf]

Not sure if I'd ban any specific classes or anything like that but, stuff like infinite loops, a caster knowing wish. These things I typically ban.

I used to ban Psionics, but now I just quietly curse the player under my breath when he says he rolled up a Psion... I'm growing as a GM. lol

As long as you know the system decently and don't rely on having 80 encounters a day to reign in casters, psions are fairly reasonable.

[dascarletm]

Instead of a Banned handbook you should call it the Banndbook

[Glimbur]

banning lightning maces seems odd (never understood the melee hate) until you remember that this is for arena combat so it makes sense

Lightning Maces is part of a trick to get more attacks than you really should. If I recall correctly, it goes something like Aptitude weapon (from ToB) to use a wider crit weapon (khukri) instead of maces. Keen (core) your khukris to double crit range. Throw in Snap Kick (ToB) to get 2 attacks instead of one (this part I'm not sure of). Then, threaten crits on 15-20 and get 2 attacks for each threat.


I agree, a ban list will be table specific. It's about controlling the power level of the campaign, which is similar but not identical to the character level. But power level is a matter of personal preference; if the whole group is happy playing Monks and Fighters then more power to them. If the whole group wants to be wizards that cast all their spells in one round, or clerics that wander around in AMF's, then that's fine too.

[Harrow]

At first I was skeptical, but now I really think it has potential.

The big thing is that it really does have to be a handbook and not a list. It shouldn't just be something with the intended purpose of a DM linking his players to and saying "Nothing from here". In fact, stating that that's not the purpose should probably be one of the first lines in the handbook.

From there, section it out. For example, have one section on Wish/Limited Wish/Miracle. Start with how to form infinite Wish loops and all the ways those can mess stuff up. Then go on to explain common ways to get these spells without an XP cost and why that damages some games. End discussion on the problem with the spells themselves and all things they can do and why being able to do so much with so little can be problematic.

Then start in on how things are usually fixed. Banning certain uses, but also putting limits on things. That's really what you should do. Start with a list of things that are commonly problematic. Then, section by section, explain all the ways they can be problematic, from things that break Theoretical Optimization to things that only cause problems when the rest of the party is made of Fighters and Monks.

Just remember, the mentality isn't "This stuff is bad and never should have been made" it's "This stuff sometimes causes problems, here's why and what you can do to fix it if it does"

TL;DR This idea has merit, just remember that it's a Handbook and not a list, there's a difference

[FreakyCheeseMan]

This is way too subjective to be meaningful

Well, a "Handbook" isn't a set of rules, it's a set of advice. The existence of the Wizard Handbook doesn't mean that anyone has to do exactly what it says - and all the good handbooks show their work anyway, and explain the process that led to the decisions they recommend.

So, I'd imagine a "Banned Handbook" having sort of a tier system of its own - at the top would be stuff that yes, absolutely, this must be banned (say, the D2 Crusader) and then progressively lower tiers would have lesser and lesser issues (Persisted Spell, Time Stop, DMM, etc.) More than that, however, there would be brief-but-thorough explanations as to why each thing was banned.

The idea wouldn't be "This is a list of house rules you should adopt" but rather "If you're worried about game balance and abusive players, read this handbook to get a thorough grounding on the subject without having to spend a month or do participating in forum arguments."

[nyarlathotep]

Really this image is all you need if you want something fast and easy. More careful consideration however should be used for your specific group though, figure out what they want and how they play and what they enjoy.
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/Nyarlathotep1/howtofix35_zps4fe33c2e.jpg (http://s573.photobucket.com/user/Nyarlathotep1/media/howtofix35_zps4fe33c2e.jpg.html)

[Amphetryon]

Lightning Maces is part of a trick to get more attacks than you really should. If I recall correctly, it goes something like Aptitude weapon (from ToB) to use a wider crit weapon (khukri) instead of maces. Keen (core) your khukris to double crit range. Throw in Snap Kick (ToB) to get 2 attacks instead of one (this part I'm not sure of). Then, threaten crits on 15-20 and get 2 attacks for each threat.


IIRC, the Legend of Olo's Crossbow is based, in part, on the use of Lightning Maces. He went NI on his own face.

[thethird]

It is, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7644456&postcount=24). :smallsmile:

[mattie_p]

IIRC, the Legend of Olo's Crossbow is based, in part, on the use of Lightning Maces. He went NI on his own face.

Here's the link to lightning maces in action (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6968457#post6968457), killing himself, in one of the test of spite arena matches.