Banning Core Races, Classes and PRCs

[fluke1993]

Evening playground. I will be DMing a game soon and I am considering the above. The main reason is that most of my play group never gets out of core or if they do it's for feats, spells and ACFs. I don't think anyone in my group has ever tried Psionics, much less the kick ass things like in MoI and ToB.

I am aware of the difficulties of working with a bunch of subsystems and I am willing to help the players with their characters.

Another (entirely different) thing I have been considering is running a gestalt game. If I go this route I would not restrict classes though I would still encourage non core classes.

Ultimately what I want to do is get people out of their comfort zone. The only thing I am worried about is if this is a little too extreme.

Also as far as banning races from core, should this include subraces? (I.E. should I ban Vanilla gnomes but allow Whisper Gnomes?)

[ArcturusV]

Well, if you ban subraces you're not left with too many races you can use. That would cut out about 70% of the player races I've seen. So I probably wouldn't suggest that.

[Rhynn]

Banning Core Races, Classes and PRCs

That's cool. It's a way to make a setting stand out.


The main reason is that most of my play group never gets out of core or if they do it's for feats, spells and ACFs.

That's a bad reason.


I don't think anyone in my group has ever tried Psionics, much less the kick ass things like in MoI and ToB.

How does this detract from anybody's enjoyment of the game?


Ultimately what I want to do is get people out of their comfort zone. The only thing I am worried about is if this is a little too extreme.

Is that fun for anybody but you? Seems pretty "meta," which doesn't make for a good game unless you've got players who enjoy that.


Basically, if you want to run an unusual game, come up with an unusual setting that makes sense.

[sonofzeal]

I'd recommend banning spells too, except for casters with very restricted lists. However, I'd allow variants on Core content (subraces, variant classes, etc).

But yeah, an anti-Core game is totally feasible, and generally more balanced and more awesome.

[137beth]

It can actually be more balanced than a game with core.

I'd allow non-core subraces of core races. They are different enough to accomplish your goal of getting people out of their comfort zone (which IMO is a worthwhile goal, even though Ryhnn apparently disagrees, I like it).

[fluke1993]

Hmmm...

What If I allowed monster manual races but not races of things like elf, halfling and dwarf. This would still leave plenty of races from things like the monster manual (Saytyr and Centaur anyone?) as well as the Races of X books. Heck I would probably rule that Dragonborn counts as a race. I would probably have to throw in a free +1 LA but that's not a big deal and still gives plenty of races to choose from.

[edit]: Wow... I got swordsaged by 3 people...

[RoyVG]

Maybe consider asking them what kind of character they want to be? if someone askes if he wants to be a strong fighter type character, present him with the Crusader or Warblade. If someone wants to be a rogue like character, present him the Incarnate. If someone wants to play a monk-like character, present him the Totemist or the Swordsage. For magic casters, present them the speciallized casters, like the Beguiler, etc or Psionics or maybe something more exotic like Shadowcaster or maybe even the Binder.

Make them feel comfortable and try to make them excited for playing that class is important. Show them how the system works and the advantages of the class over its counterparts (The maneuvers of the Warblade over the feats of the fighter, or the way psionics works compared to spells)

For Races, Psionics and Incarnum already present some aditional races that complement the system by giving additional Power points of Essentia resp. I've found a nice list of races (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1281.0) that are (in theory) playable. Not sure if it is complete or not but it i think it is more thatn enough.

I would say don't take out the choices, but try to make the 'better' choices seem more interesing.

[Yora]

I always go with whitelist. Only the stuff on the list is available, nothing else. Usually it's about 4 to 6 races and 6 to 8 classes, with no prestige classes at all. That's totally enough.

[Rhynn]

I always go with whitelist. Only the stuff on the list is available, nothing else. Usually it's about 4 to 6 races and 6 to 8 classes, with no prestige classes at all. That's totally enough.

Yup. The game system is a toolbox. You don't need to use every tool. Pick the ones that do the best job at what you want to accomplish.

[137beth]

Hmmm...

What If I allowed monster manual races but not races of things like elf, halfling and dwarf. This would still leave plenty of races from things like the monster manual (Saytyr and Centaur anyone?) as well as the Races of X books. Heck I would probably rule that Dragonborn counts as a race. I would probably have to throw in a free +1 LA but that's not a big deal and still gives plenty of races to choose from.

Yea, frequently the "core races" refer just to PHB races. Monster manual races are very fun to use as well as non-core:smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

Hmmm...

What If I allowed monster manual races but not races of things like elf, halfling and dwarf. This would still leave plenty of races from things like the monster manual (Saytyr and Centaur anyone?) as well as the Races of X books. Heck I would probably rule that Dragonborn counts as a race. I would probably have to throw in a free +1 LA but that's not a big deal and still gives plenty of races to choose from.
MM1 races could be fair. Most are underpowered though. And I think it's niftier to go with the more exotic stuff from other books. If you open the MM1, I'd encourage you to be generous with reducing LA/RHD. Some are okay, but most of the time for MM1 you can keep the LA and remove the RHD to make it more playable. Note that this often doesn't apply to other books though.

A better option might be the Environmental and Elemental Variants (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantRaces.htm).



I always go with whitelist. Only the stuff on the list is available, nothing else. Usually it's about 4 to 6 races and 6 to 8 classes, with no prestige classes at all. That's totally enough.
Strongly disagreed.

Or, well, it depends on how you build characters. If you just choose an archetype and go with it, eh, sure. "Mr McSwordy" and "Magical Mageman" can totally function in an environment like that.

But for me, character building is all about customizing, tailoring to specific purposes. Often I'll take inspiration from a class or race or whatever, but what results is not a "Fighter" but a tactician; not a "Rogue" but a dagger-throwing assassin. And for these sorts of characters, it's almost essential to have a wide pool to draw on.

D&D 3.5 has 70+ bases classes, 450+ PrCs, 150+ base (LA+0) races, and something like 30,000+ feats. Within that range, virtually anything is possible, and an effectively infinite variety of characters are available to play.

Why in Pelor's name would you want to destroy 3.5's greatest strength like that?

And what the heck does that have to do with this thread, either? :smallconfused:

[Yora]

It depends on how you run and play the game.

To me, the game is not about character builds. Combat ability is only a tool to resolve those short breaks in the roleplaying where you have to determine how the PCs descisions work out for them. I prefer my players to think as less about dice and numbers as possible, and a large selection of classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and items is always right over your shoulder softly chanting "optimize... maximize the mathmatical efficiency of your character build...".

That's a fun thing for many people who play RPGs, but I really want to keep that out of my games. I run Pathfinder like AD&D with simpler math.

[fluke1993]

@Roy:

I can get behind that.

@Rhynn

Your right on some counts, If the group isn't for it I shouldn't do it. Given what you said, I will take a group vote on it before the game begins.

That being said, if the group is up for it one of the most fun things you can do is something you've never done before and trying something new is almost never a bad thing (unless it's cyanide).

@Zeal:

The only thing that worries me with allowing sub-races are elves and their ilk where the only thing that changes is the fluff and the ability bonuses.

@137ben:

Read the above

@Roy: I can get on board with this 110% even if I don't end up banning core this WILL happen.

@Yora: As a DM I can understand why you would do this but I don't agree. Unless your banning something for mechanical (the true-namer springs to mind) reasons, there's nothing that a little (or a lot) of re-fluffing can't fix and in general this can stifle creativity. Even if I do decide to ban core, if someone comes up with a sufficiently awesome character idea, I would probably be inclined to allow it.

@Rhynn 2nd post: How is this any different than what I suggested except taken to farther extremes?

[edit]: GAHHH it happend AGAIN!!!

[Rhynn]

How is this any different than what I suggested except taken to farther extremes?


That's cool. It's a way to make a setting stand out.

[...]

Basically, if you want to run an unusual game, come up with an unusual setting that makes sense.

It's about the how and the why.

[sonofzeal]

It depends on how you run and play the game.

To me, the game is not about character builds. Combat ability is only a tool to resolve those short breaks in the roleplaying where you have to determine how the PCs descisions work out for them. I prefer my players to think as less about dice and numbers as possible, and a large selection of classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and items is always right over your shoulder softly chanting "optimize... maximize the mathmatical efficiency of your character build...".

That's a fun thing for many people who play RPGs, but I really want to keep that out of my games. I run Pathfinder like AD&D with simpler math.
A character is defined, wholely, by two things: how they act, and what they can do.

The former can be handled just fine by lvl 1 Commoners, or lvl 9999 hyper-optimized abominations. The latter, though, is definitely assisted by a wide variety of sources.

In a game like you describe, I can still optimize perfectly well. My list of options is smaller, but frankly that just makes it easier to figure out the mathematically ideal solutions out of that set. It does nothing to discourage the practice of optimization, it merely limits its scope.

But it also limits possibilities. If I take any given character of mine and try to cram them into your system, I'm going to lose something. They won't be able to do things they did before. If I took levels in the Berserker PrC so that my Barbarian could change into his totem animal from time to time, you're cutting me off from that. The resulting character might be big and strong, but he'd likely lose a lot of the mystical nature that I'd managed to pick up. The character would be lessened.

Characters are defined by how they act, and what they can do. Nothing you as a DM will have much effect on the former - powergamers will still powergame, optimizers will still optimize. All you're doing is stripping away options and flexibility and expressive power.

[fluke1993]

The only problem with banning classes for the sake of setting is that fluff is absolutely 100% mutable. For example if I were to run a far east campaign I would not do as the oriental adventures suggests and ban wizards because they don't fit the fluff when all the guy who wants to play the wizard has to do is role play as a wu-jen.

The reason I want everyone to play a new class is so that they can role play something new. In the current game my group is playing we have a group of 5 walking tropes, and after that starts to get old after a while. At this point it's not so much role playing as going through the motions and the ONLY way I can make my dwarf cleric named Gannin stand out from previous incarnations is by playing CODzilla instead of the healbot of 3 games ago.

[Yora]

In a game like you describe, I can still optimize perfectly well. My list of options is smaller, but frankly that just makes it easier to figure out the mathematically ideal solutions out of that set. It does nothing to discourage the practice of optimization, it merely limits its scope.
You can, but that's not the point I was making. What I am refering to is giving players incentives to optimize and making it appear that optimization is both desireable and neccessary. And one line of thought is that giving less options is sending the message "don't worry about this, it's not important. Just go with something that roughly emulates with what you have in mind".

On the other hand, you have the logic "There is an assassin prestige class, so I have to multiclass into it to be able to play an assassin". Which we all know is not the case, but subconsciously these things are always in the back of your mind without realizing it. And it especially influences new players who are still unsure how everyone is supposed to work and be done.

The problem I personally have with optimization is not that it makes characters more powerful, but that I think that it is more enjoyable to me to run games in which the players don't think about stats and rolls.
Allowing a huger number of races and classes in a game is a choice. Just as allowing a small number is a choice. There is no real default, except for possibly the basic rulebook of any given game system.

[sonofzeal]

You can, but that's not the point I was making. What I am refering to is giving players incentives to optimize and making it appear that optimization is both desireable and neccessary. And one line of thought is that giving less options is sending the message "don't worry about this, it's not important. Just go with something that roughly emulates with what you have in mind".

On the other hand, you have the logic "There is an assassin prestige class, so I have to multiclass into it to be able to play an assassin". Which we all know is not the case, but subconsciously these things are always in the back of your mind without realizing it. And it especially influences new players who are still unsure how everyone is supposed to work and be done.

The problem I personally have with optimization is not that it makes characters more powerful, but that I think that it is more enjoyable to me to run games in which the players don't think about stats and rolls.
Allowing a huger number of races and classes in a game is a choice. Just as allowing a small number is a choice. There is no real default, except for possibly the basic rulebook of any given game system.
I agree that there's a definite advantage to having players not overly concerned with stats and rolls. What we disagree is simply whether limiting sources accomplishes that end.

Personally, I don't think simply allowing the rules of the game to stand is "giving players incentives to optimize and making it appear that optimization is both desirable and necessary". WotC made those books, they're part of the game, if you have access to them then that's the default.

To go from that and ban all content except a chosen set - does that honestly send the message that optimization is undesirable and/or unnecessary? Or at least, does it send the message any better than outright saying that? To me, all it says is a hostile environment where anything outside the status quo is viewed with suspicion and distrust, and that if I start trying to get creative even inside the limits then I might be seeing the business end of the banhammer. That may or may not be the case with you, but that's the message I hear when I see DMs banning wide swaths of content.

Have you tried allowing free reign and merely asking nicely? Being upfront about what type of game you want and what type of characters you want? Because whatever your whitelist is, I can probably make characters that you'll be perfectly happy without ever stepping foot inside it. Why not give your players that decision on how best to achieve the stated goals? Why not, y'know, treat them with respect?