Damaged, Broken and Banned.

[AzureKnight]

We all know that 3.0 and 3.5 have come out with SEVERAL races classes and feats that made you step back, ho a Homer Simpson head slap and scream to yourself, "Did the writer of this eat an extra helping of stupid-o's this morning?"

Whether it be a over, or underpowered class, race or feat the idea is ludicris. These things usually go on the Banned DM list, or the player is not too bright for picking this list

This thread is for you all to vent out or make other less experienced DMs become aware of all of this crap that should probrobly be better off never be brought to the gaming table.

Post what you feel is the most broken, useless,or even OP materials Wozards has ever dared to shovel our way.

[Devronq]

Metamagic reducers. Like serious this is soo soo powerful because you can get enough ways to get things to zero. This always bugged me and ridiculous and overpowered.

[Maginomicon]

I have only the following in my games:

Banned Items

Any custom magic/psionic item without prior approval (allow 2 weeks for decision)
Chaos Flask
Glove of Storing (Get a Glove of the Master Strategist instead)
Nightstick (ask for it to be rewritten)
Shapesand
Thought Bottle (ask for it to be rewritten)
Torc of Power Preservation (unless you use the MIC reprint)


Banned Classes

Psychic Rogue (it was replaced by the Lurk)
Totem Druid (broken, doesn’t function, or is vastly overpowered as-written)
Truenamer (broken, doesn’t function even with other material)


Banned Prestige Classes

Psychic Assassin (it was replaced by the Psionic Assassin)
Dweomerkeeper (ask for its Supernatural Spell ability to be rewritten)
Geomancer (ask for its Spell Versatility ability to be rewritten)


Banned Spells (although a "charged incantation" may be available which limits the spell's scope)

Astral Projection (the one-spell save game trick; duplicates items as-written)
Gate (and derivatives)
Genesis (no fast-time planar trait for you!)
Ice Assassin
Invoke Magic (maybe, ask)
Mage’s Disjunction
Mindrape (yes, this is a thing)
Miracle
Modulate (D338) was replaced with Wand Modulation (CS)
Polymorph Any Object
Planar Binding (and derivatives)
Shapechange
Shivering Touch (including derivatives, unless you use the update in the house rules)
Simulacrum
Teleport Through Time
True Seeing
Wish


Banned Powers (although a "charged communal" may be available which limits the power's scope)

Bend Reality
Genesis
Hypercognition
Mind Switch
Mind Switch, True
Psychic Reformation
Reality Revision


Banned Feats

All psionic feats in Dragon 287 (they’ve been replaced)
Chain Link (Web; requires a psionic feat from Dragon 287)
Empower Construction (Web; requires a psionic feat from Dragon 287)
Energy Affinity (Miniatures Handbook; updated to Energy Substitution)
Fell Drain (Libris Mortis; causes the wight apocalypse)
Human Heritage (Races of Destiny; unnecessary since I use the associated variant)
Inner Fortitude (Web; This 3.0 psionics feat is broken in 3.5)
Master Discipline (Web; requires a psionic feat from Dragon 287)
Overpower (Web; replaced in XPH metapsionics)
Sacred Spell (Defenders of the Faith; updated to Consecrate Spell)
Subdual Substitution (Tome and Blood; updated to Nonlethal Substitution)
Trade-Off (Web; This 3.0 psionics feat is broken in 3.5)
Violate Spell (Book of Vile Darkness; updated to Corrupt Spell)


Banned Flaws

Corpse (You’re already dead)
XP Farm (No, you can’t kill your ally for more XP)

(That's right, I don't ban the Chicken Infested flaw, but it's still an NPC-only flaw so meh)

Of course, numerous house rules exist that limit or fix a number of otherwise-ban-worthy things. Further, a number of things are explicitly banned in my main campaign setting because they don't fit the flavor or became broken (such as the Diehard feat).

[icefractal]

:smallconfused: Ok, now I'm really curious. How did Diehard of all things, becomes broken?

[Xerlith]

The same question I have about the Psychic Rogue.

[hymer]

:smallconfused: Ok, now I'm really curious. How did Diehard of all things, becomes broken?

My recollection fails me at the moment, but if you persist [the spell I can't remember that allows you to go below -10 and live], and you can keep acting even at negative hp, you've got real cheese.

[Cranthis]

:smallconfused: Ok, now I'm really curious. How did Diehard of all things, becomes broken?

We need answers!

[TiaC]

:smallconfused: Ok, now I'm really curious. How did Diehard of all things, becomes broken?

Persistant Delay Death, I would assume. Although this seems to be missing exactly what the broken part of the combo is.

[Maginomicon]

:smallconfused: Ok, now I'm really curious. How did Diehard of all things, becomes broken?
In the Death And Dying variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/deathAndDying.htm) (which the campaign setting uses but isn't part of my normal house rules), Diehard is "broken" (as in it doesn't work) since you never are at -1 to -9 HP. Even if I assume that the RAI for the Diehard feat is to allow you to act "as if" disabled even when in the dying condition and clarify that the Diehard feat does that, that doesn't change the fact that you auto-stabilize when you would enter the dying state (leaving you at 0 HP but stable and with the choice to act "as if" disabled). This makes Diehard not just broken, but overpowered, since the only way to die then is to either fail the fortitude save by 10 or more initially or to succeed on the initial save but then fail on a later hit (when disabled), as succeeding on the later hit's save would allow you as-written to remain disabled when you would enter the dying state again.

I thus rewrote it and renamed it "Dieharder" (kudos if you get that reference). Now it instead makes the Death And Dying variant's reacting fortitude saves start at DC 5 instead of DC 10, which is a much more elegant solution than futzing around with what happens when you enter the dying condition in various circumstances.

[Lord Haart]

Psychic Rogue (it was replaced by the Lurk)That's like banning Fighter because it was replaced by barbarian. Only without the whole "remaining class is more powerful, interesting, viable and well-designed than the banned one" part.

Unless you mean to say "Lurk and psyrogue are now gestalted or near-gestalted, and the combined class is called Lurk so there's no such class as phychic rogue now". In which case you've picked a strange way to say that.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Seconded. Lurk is utter crap, Psychic Rogue is at least playable.
Dweomerkeeper doesn't really have all that much to offer except supernatural spell (which i agree is broken) so banning it is just common sense for any "normal" game.
I don't really see a problem with Geomancer. Is there an abusable trick i don't know? It seems to me that the class is a pretty mediocre choice unless you play gestalt.

As to the banned spells it seems to me that you tried to remove anything that can't be countered. It's certainly a viable choice to keep your games on track, if maybe a little heavy handed.
Making the XP cost of Wish/Miracle unavoidable and allowing True Seeing to be countered by Nondetection (via opposed CL check) is the houserule i use when i GM.

We rarely ban stuff outright unless it's only use is to break the game. Usually we agree on restrictions for certain options and it works fine.
That list includes stuff like Circle Magic, Simulacra/Ice Assassin abuse and things of a similar power level.

[Maginomicon]

The same question I have about the Psychic Rogue.
That's like banning Fighter because it was replaced by barbarian. Only without the whole "remaining class is more powerful, interesting, viable and well-designed than the banned one" part.

Unless you mean to say "Lurk and psyrogue are now gestalted or near-gestalted, and the combined class is called Lurk so there's no such class as phychic rogue now". In which case you've picked a strange way to say that.
Seconded. Lurk is utter crap, Psychic Rogue is at least playable.
It's a psionic class that wasn't updated in or after the XPH release. That's all I really need to say to defend banning it. It obviates the rogue class entirely and would require rewriting whole swaths of the psychic rogue power list (if not the entire class description) to update it to post-XPH. The Lurk replaces it thematically at the very least. The psychic rogue is thus simply not worth trying to fix, much like truenamers.

I don't really see a problem with Geomancer. Is there an abusable trick i don't know? It seems to me that the class is a pretty mediocre choice unless you play gestalt.The spell versatility feature is likewise horribly written and impossible to adjudicate. It'd be like trying to come up with rules for called shot armor coverage: Problematic at best, migraine-inducing at worst.

[Melcar]

We rarely ban stuff outright unless it's only use is to break the game. Usually we agree on restrictions for certain options and it works fine.
That list includes stuff like Circle Magic, Simulacra/Ice Assassin abuse and things of a similar power level.

Isnt circle magic the only reason for becomman a red wizard of thay?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Isnt circle magic the only reason for becomman a red wizard of thay?

Pretty much, yeah. It is also able to break most games in half if your wizard runs around with a CL of 40 and all his spells empowered, maximized and heightened to level 20 as soon as he gets access to Simulacrum.
If he can't the class does pretty much nothing except ban an additional school of magic.
I haven't really found a non-broken use for it yet.

[Karnith]

I don't believe that anyone's mentioned the Taint-based casting classes (Maho-Bujin, Tainted Sorcerer, and Tainted Scholar), so I'll just throw those in as being way too powerful for most games.

Isnt circle magic the only reason for becomman a red wizard of thay?
It does give CL boosts to your specialist school of magic (+5 CL over 10 levels) and a few other things, but Circle Magic is what makes the class stand out.

[Sith_Happens]

It's a psionic class that wasn't updated in or after the XPH release.

That's because it came out three months after the XPH.

[Maginomicon]

That's because it came out three months after the XPH.
Doesn't matter. As much as I like the updates in the Mind's Eye articles in concept, the 3.5 update to the 3.0 Psychic Rogue wasn't included in the books for a reason. Hell, if they were so bent out of shape about the Erudite that it went from "featured on the Complete Psionic back cover" to "thrown into a variant class section in the back of the book", why on Earth should I trust the Psychic Rogue which didn't make it into any of the books period? People rail on how Complete Psionic was "errata we had to pay for", but if it's supposed to be errata, how come it wasn't included but the lurk was (come to think of it, even the lurk was mentioned on the complete psionic back cover)? Even the commentary on the 3.5 update to the Psychic Rogue says essentially "it sucked in playtesting, so we gave it more of a psionic flavor to the class in hopes that it wouldn't suck anymore". They clearly didn't have much faith in the class, and I don't have faith in it either. This issue is starting to derail the OP's topic, so if you want to continue this with me, please take it to PM.

[The Trickster]

I would add planer sheppard to the banned PrC list, and would consider adding the entire polymorph tree in as well (in addition to PaO). PlShep makes an already strong class waaaaaaay to powerful. The polymorph line (alter self, polymorph, draconic polymorph, etc) may not be a broken as PaO, but I feel they offer too much versatility for the spell level they are at.

[Feint's End]

Torc of Power Preservation (unless you use the MIC reprint)


Psychic Reformation


OK as a dedicated Psionics Player I have to ask you. Why in the nine hells would you do this?

It's not like the Torc of Power Preservation is overpowered or overly powerful in general. It's just a solid item that gives something to Psionics, which are short in specific Items anyways. It's not like Psionics have access to Pearls of Power or similar.

As for Psychic Reformation: Depending on what your problem with this power is you could use the PF version which basically makes your character unplayable for the next 24 hours if you go back a few levels.
I'd much rather houserule this power than outright ban it since it's one of the few ways for Psions (which should be the most versatile psionic class short of Erudites probably) to increase versatility.
->Psychic Reformation ban but no Erudite or just StP ban?

[GreenETC]

True Seeing
I agree with almost everything on your list, but I really must question this one. What makes True Seeing so broken, and how do you deal with monsters such as demons who have permanent True Seeing. I understand it negates a lot of Illusions (like all the good ones) but is it really that dangerous in the hands of your PCs?

[Psyren]

Psychic Rogue is fine right out of the box. It doesn't need "fixing." If anything you should be fixing Lurk, whose sneak attack is so pointless it may as well not exist and who doesn't even get Trapfinding without an ACF that gives it an inferior version.

And if you were truly worried about overshadowing the Rogue, Factotum and Beguiler would be on your ban list too.


@ OP: Along with metamagic reducers I also ban Invisible Spell. It's too poorly-written and creates far more problems than it solves.

[GreenSerpent]

And if you were truly worried about overshadowing the Rogue, Factotum and Beguiler would be on your ban list too.


Also Kobold Domain Cleric.

[Telonius]

Dust of Sneezing and Choking. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#dustofSneezingandChoking) For the low, low price 2400gp, you too can stun anything in the game for a minimum of 5 rounds, no save.

[Segev]

Honestly, I'm curious how Geomancer's spell versatility is in any way broken. >_>

[GreenETC]

Honestly, I'm curious how Geomancer's spell versatility is in any way broken. >_>
It's most likely to avoid a Geomancer DMM: Persisting some spells that Clerics don't gain access to.

Dust of Sneezing and Choking. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#dustofSneezingandChoking) For the low, low price 2400gp, you too can stun anything in the game for a minimum of 5 rounds, no save.
Oh for the love of god, yes. This is one of the worst things in the game, broken beyond belief if ever used the way it should be.

[Alabenson]

I try to avoid banning things if at all possible. That said I do have a small list of things that I ban for being broken to the extent that attempting to fix them simply isn't worth the effort.

Banned:
Books:
Weapons of Legacy
Prestige Classes:
Planar Shepard
ACFs:
Cloistered Cleric, Spontaneous Divination, Convert Spell to Power
Spells:
Ice Assassin, Shun the Dark Chaos, Embrace the Dark Chaos
Feats:
Precocious Apprentice

Subject to DM Approval:
Dragon Magazine
Evil Characters
Homebrew
3rd party sources
Unearthed Arcana
Leadership

[ImaDeadMan]

Someone was going to say this eventually so I guess I'll just say it now. ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns. Specifically the crusader and the warblade. A crusader can dish out ridiculous damage and then still tank like a boss and heal just as well. The warblade gets all of his readied maneuvers back simply by making a full attack action.

One broken thing in particular is the 1d2 crusader infinite damage loop.

[GreenETC]

Cloistered Cleric
What's so bad about Cloistered Cleric outside of people who dip one level of it for Devotion feats? I know there are tons of Cleric builds (such as a Dragonwrought Kobold Domain Cleric I'm working on right now) where skill points would be totally sweet, because boy does it suck to have 2+Int skills. I'd practically consider the regular Cleric chassis better with the higher HD and armor proficiency.

Someone was going to say this eventually so I guess I'll just say it now. ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns. Specifically the crusader and the warblade. A crusader can dish out ridiculous damage and then still tank like a boss and heal just as well. The warblade gets all of his readied maneuvers back simply by making a full attack action.
This has less to do with the power of the classes and more to do with the high floor effect where it is basically impossible to mess up a Warblade (which is great game design by the way, so you don't end up completely screwed like a Fighter with the wrong feats). Barbarians and Fighters can be built better than Warblades, but the problem lies in the fact that in most games, people playing the games are not good enough at system mastery to match up to the floor of ToB, meaning they seem ridiculous.

On top of this, ToB becomes less crazy at higher levels, where they sacrifice full attacks for maneuvers, but most people try it at level 1-3, where a Crusader is absolutely ridiculous with heavy armor and shield proficiency and the ability to shrug off hits while giving all his allies +4 to hit or healing while attacking when hit points matter.

[Gwendol]

After having seen pages upon pages of debate on what this can do I'm throwing Iron Heart Surge in the bonfire. It's ill-conceived and badly written and can't be used without drawing up an agreement of what it does and how.

[Grod_The_Giant]

ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns.
Noooooo why would you say that and start the inevitable argument whyyyyyy?

I tend to try to fix things rather than ban them, although there are some spells (most of which have already been mentioned) that are pretty irredeemable. I think I'd mostly ban stuff like the Monk, Samurai, or Ninja that are easily-replaceable crap. And maybe Artificer, because of the complexity and campaign-shaping downtime requirements.

[Deophaun]

And maybe Artificer, because of the complexity and campaign-shaping downtime requirements.
UA has some alternate crafting rules that can fix that.

[GreenSerpent]

Dust Eggshell grenades are also pretty banworthy. Insta-blind on a ranged touch attack? Very very strong for 10 gp.

I've been ruffling about and am considering replacing (in my world I'm brewing) the Lurk and Ninja with Psychic Rogue ACFs, the Samurai as a Warblade ACF, turning the Divine Mind into a cleric/psion prestige class, using the Pathfinder Ranger (modified a little) in place of the normal ranger... I have a few more ideas in the works, but those are the only solid ones.

[Forrestfire]

Generally in my campaigns I work with my players to figure out optimization levels. Almost nothing is banned out of hand, because there's a gentleman's agreement regarding broken stuff ("try not to overshadow everyone, and if you want to bring a trick into the game, realize that enemies might use it too").

I will generally encourage players to use the Tome of Battle classes if they're willing, though. They're generally much more balanced, useful, and fun for the player than being stuck as a fighter if they want to melee.


One broken thing in particular is the 1d2 crusader infinite damage loop.

While I'm sure you're meaning something different, the 1d2 crusader is broken because it causes the game to grind to a halt, not only because of the damage.

[Vaz]

While I'm sure you're meaning something different, the 1d2 crusader is broken because it causes the game to grind to a halt, not because of the damage. Because there's no way to break the loop, the game has to keep going unless house ruled, so it would make sense to just house rule the whole thing to not work.

What? The loop happens all at the same time; so it's effectively infinite damage. Provided you hit, you kill the target. Not sure where it causes the game to grind to a halt.

[Psyren]

While I'm sure you're meaning something different, the 1d2 crusader is broken because it causes the game to grind to a halt, not only because of the damage.

This is a common misconception. Aura of Chaos actually says you CAN continue to reroll - only the first reroll is forced. Which means you can stop the loop whenever you want, because you aren't forced to reroll after that first one.

(Not that I'm condoning the use of 1d2 crusader at a table by any means.)

[Forrestfire]

Whoops, my bad. Totally misread that >_>

In any case, what matters is that the 1d2 crusader is by no means the entirety of ToB. Banning the book because of it is like banning the Player's Handbook because of the wizard spell list :smallsigh:

[jedipilot24]

Non-theistic clerics.
The Dragonwrought feat.
Anything that is from a specific setting and we're not playing that setting.
Abuse of Planar Binding (punished by Interplanar Death Squads).
Shadowcraft shenanigans (none of the "Oh gods, it's realer than I am!" stuff; it maxes out at 100%).

[Kyeudo]

The psychic rogue is thus simply not worth trying to fix, much like truenamers.

As someone who has fixed the Truenamer and a fan of psionics, I find this somewhat insulting.

[Harrow]

Shadowcraft shenanigans (none of the "Oh gods, it's realer than I am!" stuff; it maxes out at 100%).

I see this one banned a lot, and I don't really get it. Do you find it too powerful? Or does the fluff of 120% reality just not sit well with you?

[Deophaun]

I see this one banned a lot, and I don't really get it. Do you find it too powerful? Or does the fluff of 120% reality just not sit well with you?
It's the "You successfully saved so you get affected MORE" aspect that doesn't sit well me.

[Psyren]

As someone who has fixed the Truenamer and a fan of psionics, I find this somewhat insulting.

I plug your fix every chance I get, too :smalltongue:


I see this one banned a lot, and I don't really get it. Do you find it too powerful? Or does the fluff of 120% reality just not sit well with you?

Yeah, it doesn't, at least with me. Shadow Magic's principles are sympathy and reflection, and for a reflection to be more real than the thing it's reflecting makes no sense to me. Plus I find it inherently unbalancing/distasteful that strong will can actually be a liability to a creature faced with illusions.

I'm okay with getting it all the way to 100% but not an iota higher.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yeah, it doesn't, at least with me. Shadow Magic's principles are sympathy and reflection, and for a reflection to be more real than the thing it's reflecting makes no sense to me. Plus I find it inherently unbalancing/distasteful that strong will can actually be a liability to a creature faced with illusions.

I'm okay with getting it all the way to 100% but not an iota higher.

Pretty much my exact opinion. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I also ban the basic Soulknife (replace with Grod's quick fix) and the Truenamer (also a fan of Kyeudo's fix).

[Zanos]

Someone was going to say this eventually so I guess I'll just say it now. ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns. Specifically the crusader and the warblade. A crusader can dish out ridiculous damage and then still tank like a boss and heal just as well. The warblade gets all of his readied maneuvers back simply by making a full attack action.

One broken thing in particular is the 1d2 crusader infinite damage loop.

The base classes and systems in ToB are only broken if you put them next to a Fighter. Considering the classes were meant to replace most of the other martial classes, that should never happen.

If you have Wizards and Druids and Clerics in your party, ToB is a great book to have to make melee guys feel useful.

[Curmudgeon]

Prestige classes to ban:

Incantatrix (because metamagic cost reducers are overpowered)
Planar Shepherd (also overpowered)
Factotum (so poorly written that it's not worth all the effort required to fix it; I recommend the Savant instead)

[Hiro Protagonest]

Someone was going to say this eventually so I guess I'll just say it now. ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns.
Lol.

Specifically the crusader and the warblade. A crusader can dish out ridiculous damage and then still tank like a boss and heal just as well.
Oh no! A tank that can actually deal decent damage! And tank!

The warblade gets all of his readied maneuvers back simply by making a full attack action.
And? What about this makes it broken?

One broken thing in particular is the 1d2 crusader infinite damage loop.

Dude, nobody uses that. And the Player's Handbook has all the tools necessary to get an infinite wish loop, which is far more broken than one-shotting everything you can hit in the first place.

[mabriss lethe]

I ban/nerf most long distance teleport or planar travel spells. (though I prefer to nerf rather than ban altogether.) One of the things I usually do is increase the casting time for them and tack on the Dimension Door wording, so that they aren't likely combat options, but still usable. Also, spells like Plane shift require extensive research to make certain your spell is tuned to the right plane.

[Lanaya]

I don't ban anything. If I can't trust someone to play the game properly and not try to abuse the rules or overshadow other players, I won't let them play in my games anyway. As long as you trust your players you don't need to ban anything.

[Maginomicon]

I agree with almost everything on your list, but I really must question this one. What makes True Seeing so broken, and how do you deal with monsters such as demons who have permanent True Seeing. I understand it negates a lot of Illusions (like all the good ones) but is it really that dangerous in the hands of your PCs?
Yes. True Seeing is a universal "nope" to too many GM plans. Banning it from player access (unless it's severely limited in some way, which some effects do) ensures that I don't have that particularly-egregious hurdle when trying to make a campaign (which is hard enough as-is).

OK as a dedicated Psionics Player I have to ask you. Why in the nine hells would you do this?

It's not like the Torc of Power Preservation is overpowered or overly powerful in general. It's just a solid item that gives something to Psionics, which are short in specific Items anyways. It's not like Psionics have access to Pearls of Power or similar.

As for Psychic Reformation: Depending on what your problem with this power is you could use the PF version which basically makes your character unplayable for the next 24 hours if you go back a few levels.
I'd much rather houserule this power than outright ban it since it's one of the few ways for Psions (which should be the most versatile psionic class short of Erudites probably) to increase versatility.
->Psychic Reformation ban but no Erudite or just StP ban?The torc of power preservation isn't broken? Are you kidding me? Besides, it's clear that the MIC version was meant to replace the original, and so I trust the playtesting that resulted in that reprint.

The Erudite and StP are fixed by applying sense and a certain "rare" errata file for Complete Psionic (even without that errata file, you can infer the errata from reading the epic erudite section). The basic gist of the errata's fix is that it wasn't meant to be "unique powers per level per day" but instead "unique powers per day". This all but cripples the erudite class (Oh noez! A tier 1 class gets nerfed! The horror!), sure, but makes sense in context. However, I then house-rule that there are a number of reasonable things that simply don't count against that UPD limit (StP cantrips, cognizance crystals, etc.).


Realize that according to RAW for all of psionics, all of the power points spent on a power (both for the initial manifesting cost and the augmentation cost) has to all come from the same source. The new general rule for unique powers per day is this:


If and only if the erudite uses his own personal power points in the initial manifesting cost of manifesting a power and that power is only accessible from his erudite power list does it count against his unique powers per day limit.

This parallels the single-source rule mentioned above and how spell slots between different spellcasting classes don’t overlap (the unique powers per day limitation is similar in basic concept to spell slots).

The following are descriptions of a few things this general rule excludes:

Effects which don’t in-fact draw from his erudite abilities don’t count towards an erudite’s unique powers per day limit. This also includes powers accessed through the “Manifest an Unknown Power from Another’s Powers Known” rules.

Powers that are manifested from a separate power point pool (such as a cognizance crystal) and powers which don’t draw from a power point pool at all (such as spell-to-power cantrips) don’t count towards an erudite’s unique powers per day limit.

An erudite that takes levels in the Metamind prestige class does not apply new powers used with the “Free Manifesting” ability as counting towards an erudite’s unique powers per day limit (just like it wouldn’t be the case if he also had levels in Wilder and the power known was from that list), as their initial manifesting cost is “free”. Likewise, powers accessed during a “Font of Power” don’t count towards an erudite’s unique powers per day limit (since the power points from Font of Power come from an infinite but separate supply of power points).
Again, please, let's try to not derail the thread on my part. "What would you ban" threads have a very high tendency to become rant-fests, so if you have issues with this stuff I've said, please take it to PM with me.

[TuggyNE]

Whoops, my bad. Totally misread that >_>

In any case, what matters is that the 1d2 crusader is by no means the entirety of ToB. Banning the book because of it is like banning the Player's Handbook because of the wizard spell list :smallsigh:

More like banning PHB because of the candle of invocation, to me.

[AuraTwilight]

Factotum (so poorly written that it's not worth all the effort required to fix it; I recommend the Savant instead)

What do you feel is poorly written about the Factotum?

[Psyren]

The torc of power preservation isn't broken? Are you kidding me? Besides, it's clear that the MIC version was meant to replace the original, and so I trust the playtesting that resulted in that reprint.

I put far, far more stock in DSP's playtesting, and they determined the MiC's nerf to the Torc to be unnecessary when they brought it into PF identical to the XPH version. So MiC can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned. Ditto for Complete Psionic and the Astral Construct nerf, another one that DSP dialed back.

[NEO|Phyte]

More like banning PHB because of the candle of invocation, to me.

But the candle of invocation is in the DMG, so you ban that, not the PHB.

[Karnith]

But the candle of invocation is in the DMG, so you ban that, not the PHB.
Similarly, the d2 Crusader relies on a quirk of the Imbued Healing feat, which is in Complete Champion.
Explaining the joke is SO FUNNY MUAHAHAHAHAHA
In either case, banning an entire book over a single exploit involving said book is very silly.

[Jormengand]

I don't ban specific things (except things like the Candle of Invocation which are ridiculous or things which don't actually function at all) I ban builds. Orcs, Headlong rush, TWF feats and similar, PsWs, barbarians, bards, dragon disciples and psionic lion's charge (with fixed duration, mind you) are not broken in and of themselves, but that doesn't stop you using the most horrific dive attack ever seen which is basically guaranteed to kill everyone adjacent to you when you land.

[Destro_Yersul]

Prestige classes to ban:

Incantatrix (because metamagic cost reducers are overpowered)
Planar Shepherd (also overpowered)
Factotum (so poorly written that it's not worth all the effort required to fix it; I recommend the Savant instead)



What do you feel is poorly written about the Factotum?

I find it funnier that he included it on a list of banned Prestige Classes, when Factotum is a base class.

[druid91]

I ban nothing but behavior. So far as I'm concerned you could play Pun-Pun at my table as long as you kept it fun for everybody.

How you would do that? No idea. But I'd give you a chance. A very short chance, but still.

[Feint's End]

The torc of power preservation isn't broken? Are you kidding me? Besides, it's clear that the MIC version was meant to replace the original, and so I trust the playtesting that resulted in that reprint.

The Erudite and StP are fixed by applying sense and a certain "rare" errata file for Complete Psionic (even without that errata file, you can infer the errata from reading the epic erudite section). The basic gist of the errata's fix is that it wasn't meant to be "unique powers per level per day" but instead "unique powers per day". This all but cripples the erudite class (Oh noez! A tier 1 class gets nerfed! The horror!), sure, but makes sense in context. However, I then house-rule that there are a number of reasonable things that simply don't count against that UPD limit (StP cantrips, cognizance crystals, etc.).


Again, please, let's try to not derail the thread on my part. "What would you ban" threads have a very high tendency to become rant-fests, so if you have issues with this stuff I've said, please take it to PM with me.

I'm sorry I didn't intend to derail the thread. Also as Psyren has already stated if you look for a balanced view on psionics look into PF since Dreamscarred did an amazing job in balancing the system and adding more flavour ... and as he already said they actually use the XPH version and also the unnerfed Astral Construct.


I don't ban anything. If I can't trust someone to play the game properly and not try to abuse the rules or overshadow other players, I won't let them play in my games anyway. As long as you trust your players you don't need to ban anything.

Thank you! Finally somebody I can totally support. I have yet to meet a group where I need to ban something. I mean there is a solution called talking and it worked wonders in every situation I had problems in up till now.

[ddude987]

Like other people said, I don't ban anything inherently. There is a gentlemen's agreement when everyone sits down at the table that we are all here to have fun and anyone hurting that goal will be politely talked to, and possible removed. I also treat everything as RAW, because that makes the most logical sense to me. If there is a rule why change it just because you think it doesn't make sense. For whatever reason, drowning yourself to gain health doesn't bother me as a DM. In regards to things like candle of invocation, the players can't find one for the list price, after all, there ARE other adventurers out there. Such a sought after item would increase its demand.

I am working on overhauling mundane user feat trees and base classes so that they can be even more badass and have less ridiculous feat taxes. I suppose this can be considered working on fixing things that are actually broken in the game.

[Curmudgeon]

What do you feel is poorly written about the Factotum?

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A Factotum is proficient with only light armor. What happens, with respect to "spellcasting", if the Factotum gains proficiency with heavier armor? Also,
Because he uses spells as if they were spelllike abilities, a factotum can wear armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. That's exactly backward; the Factotum uses only SLAs.
By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability.
Inspiration: IPs are gained at the beginning of each encounter. What's an encounter? We know an encounter starts when you roll initiative, but there could be social encounters, trap encounters, & c.; those just don't have explicit rules, so a DM call here could make a big difference. Mike Mearls, writing as "Guest Sage", declared this ability to also grant full IPs at the end of an encounter, considerably muddying the waters seeing as how (1) that's not what the class feature says; and (2) the end of an encounter isn't defined in the RAW.
Arcane Dilettante: Keeps referring to spells, even though the Factotum has no spells. These are chosen "at the start of each day", which isn't defined. Also, can the Factotum mimic spells which are Sorcerer-only or Wizard-only, or are they limited to spells which are common to both classes? Finally, they say the Factotum can apply metamagic feats. Are these the metamagic feats which apply to spells, or the metamagic feats which apply to SLAs?
Cunning Strike: No specification that this gets an override to the standard stacking rule, but Mike Mearls ignored the RAW and said it did as "Guest Sage".
Opportunistic Piety: Does this allow for cheaper/free Divine Metamagic in a Factotum/divine caster build?
Cunning Surge: Has no specification about number of uses per turn.
Cunning Breach:
The target automatically fails any spell resistance check that she attempts to avoid your spell. :smallconfused: There's no such mechanism in the D&D game.
Cunning Dodge:
You dodge out of the way, take cover from a spell, or otherwise escape. Is actual movement from the Factotum's square involved, or a change in status to/from prone?
Cunning Brilliance: This is explicit in being strictly limited to Extraordinary class abilities. Then Mike Mearls, Idiot Guest Sage, said it's "reasonable to assume" sneak attack (an untyped class ability) is Extraordinary. :smallfurious:
Outside of the book, the Font of Inspiration (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) Factotum-only feat: quadratic or linear IP gain?.
Nearly all Factotum class abilities need work. It's just too much.

[Kazyan]

Factotum is also in that infuriating "High Tier 3" zone where it can do everything better than anybody except full casters, a redundant class thematically, and has some lazy design Iin places.

[Just to Browse]

I don't ban things, because I like crafting challenges around people that do better than others. However, things I find hilariously badly written are:
NPC classes. Srsly wtf.
Everything in Savage Species. That book is an insult because it's so badly thought out, but the lack of foresight actually leads to players getting nice things.
Fear stacking. God why.
The last two iterative attacks. Attacking at a -10 penalty? Honestly?
Power Attack.
The Desert Wind and Stone Dragon disciplines. They're not horrible, but eclipsed by the other 7 and that annoys me to no end.
Everything in Tome of Magic. Too many walls of text, to little forethought and editing.

[Elderand]

I don't ban anything but I keep a very close eyes whenever someone mentions Manipulate form or Illithid savant.

[TuggyNE]

Also, That's exactly backward; the Factotum uses only SLAs.

The Factotum picks spells to then use in the form of SLAs. That's what it says, that's what you said, there's no contradiction. :smallconfused:

[Vaz]

The STP Erudite isn't nerfed by that limit, taking Linked Power gets around that limit easily enough, and is as much a feat tax as Natural Spell is to a Druid.

[lsfreak]

Prefer not to ban things, but there is an assumed gentlemen's agreement. And if someone wants to play a fighter, I'd prefer to point them towards a warblade or homebrew up a fix. But in my mind, banning things should more be negotiating with the players to find something you can both agree with, rather than merely saying no. I want the players to understand why I don't want to allow something, and I want to understand why the players are going after it so I can accommodate them.

I do have thematic bans - for example I prefer to nix easy planar travel (assuming I don't trash everything but the material plane in the first place), no long-range teleportation or flight because the consequences of it are too complicated for me to easily account for but so important suspension of disbelief is at risk if you don't. But those are flavor things, not (necessarily) broken things.

[Der_DWSage]

I ban very little-those that I do ban tend to be labelled shenanigans by anyone with an iota of balance. (To wit, I had to ban the Candle of Invocation from one of my players who wanted to use an Infinite Wish Cycle...at level 4. Similarly, I'd ban the Infinite Damage Crusader and Pun-Pun, or at least throw a monkey wrench in the works.)

I do, however, houserule things into the ground. Fly's duration is now Concentration + 1 rounds, the PF Gunslinger doesn't get to use touch attacks for everything, Divine Metamagic has to come from your own Turn Undead attempts, and Persistent Metamagic only turns rounds/level into minutes/level. Things of that nature, and 90% of the time, brought up with people before the game starts. (If it isn't, then we talk out what expectations were, why I'm not allowing it, and allow minor rebuilds based on the discussion.)

But if I were to ban anything outright, assuming a group of decent players? It'd be a certain list of spells. Polymorph Any Object, Fabricate, Ice Assassin, the typical 'Shenanigans' list of spells.

[LadyLexi]

One of my DM's is a "Ban-stuff" style DM. The most frustrating of which is the ban of random stuff.

The last game the two things that were banned that were most strange: Commoner and any non-bipedal race.

It did get me wanting to play a horse though...

[Doc_Maynot]

One of my DM's is a "Ban-stuff" style DM. The most frustrating of which is the ban of random stuff.

The last game the two things that were banned that were most strange: Commoner and any non-bipedal race.

It did get me wanting to play a horse though...

A chicken-infested horse?

[Psyren]

Nearly all Factotum class abilities need work. It's just too much.

Why, we might end up deciding how to run things that aren't defined in Ye Moste Holy RAW! We can't have that! :smallamused:

[Curmudgeon]

Why, we might end up deciding how to run things that aren't defined in Ye Moste Holy RAW! We can't have that! :smallamused:
I'm not opposed to house rules; some things are worth fixing. I'm not willing to double the number of my house rules merely to fix one class, though; it just isn't worth that amount of effort.

[Jeff the Green]

**Dusts off house rule document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WS-45uC4IYfGo01FJHq2V1XWyAfF7sBUQ3H7OCi4Oh8/pub)**

I don't ban a lot of stuff. Guidance of the avatar is the only one that gets a blanket "no". It's basically an instant win button, it doesn't scale, and it makes the cleric awesome while making it impossible for the cleric to make the rogue awesome. I much prefer to make divine insight touch ranged.

In my home setting artificer and druid are banned for thematic reasons (the former because it's under heavy state regulation that doesn't work well with adventuring, the latter because it's impossible to draw power from nature), and tier 1 classes are so heavily nerfed, again for thematic reasons, that they're only worth it as dips for feats/domains/wand access.

I do, however, strongly encourage players not to use monk, fighter, ninja, and the like.

[Captnq]

Dust of Sneezing and Choking. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#dustofSneezingandChoking) For the low, low price 2400gp, you too can stun anything in the game for a minimum of 5 rounds, no save.

Uh, you understand it's a cursed item and it affects the one using the item as well, right? It's not like I can throw it at someone, I have to try and use it like I was attempting to make someone appear and in a 20 foot radius around me, we all start coughing, right?

I mean, yes, I supposed you could suicide bomb a group of people, but you are risking 2d6 con drain.

Also, if you fail the saving throw, you are not stunned. Yes, 2d6 con damage, but no stunning. It's hardly an awesome attack.

Plus, by the rules, it's only 1d20+7 to over come spell resistance. As a player, I do not think I would use this. Ever.

[Doc_Maynot]

Also, if you fail the saving throw, you are not stunned. Yes, 2d6 con damage, but no stunning. It's hardly an awesome attack.


Whereas I do agree with you on the cursed item part, when it comes to the item's description it states: "Those who succeed on either saving throw are nonetheless disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds." So, it is still 5d4 rounds of being effectively stunned.

[LordBlades]

Besides, it's clear that the MIC version was meant to replace the original, and so I trust the playtesting that resulted in that reprint.


You mean the playtesting done by the same guys that thought Monk and Druid totally belonged together in the same book?

Given WOtC's track record of 3.5 balance, the claim 'this was tested by WotC and found balanced' lends about the same credibility to a balance claim as 'I showed pictures of these two classes to a random bum on the street; he thought they were balanced'.

[Psyren]

I'm not opposed to house rules; some things are worth fixing. I'm not willing to double the number of my house rules merely to fix one class, though; it just isn't worth that amount of effort.

That's where we disagree - I think the class is definitely worth the effort. I can understand you not liking it though since it so thoroughly flattens the rogue's toes, especially with the Cunning Strike ruling.

[Mnemnosyne]

Whereas I do agree with you on the cursed item part, when it comes to the item's description it states: "Those who succeed on either saving throw are nonetheless disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds." So, it is still 5d4 rounds of being effectively stunned.

See bolded portion. Yes, it's pretty obvious it means for characters that fail both saving throws to be stunned, but it doesn't say that. The stun condition only takes effect, by RAW, if either saving throw is successful. It should say, 'regardless of the results of either saving throw, all creatures within the area are disabled by choking (treat as stunned) for 5d4 rounds.' but it does not.

In any case, a cursed item that can affect anyone other than the person who actually uses it is probably a bad idea, specifically because of these potential loopholes. Or at least restricted to the user and any who consider themselves allies of the user at this particular moment.

[Telonius]

Uh, you understand it's a cursed item and it affects the one using the item as well, right? It's not like I can throw it at someone, I have to try and use it like I was attempting to make someone appear and in a 20 foot radius around me, we all start coughing, right?

I mean, yes, I supposed you could suicide bomb a group of people, but you are risking 2d6 con drain.

Also, if you fail the saving throw, you are not stunned. Yes, 2d6 con damage, but no stunning. It's hardly an awesome attack.

Plus, by the rules, it's only 1d20+7 to over come spell resistance. As a player, I do not think I would use this. Ever.

Spell resistance wouldn't apply, for the same reason spell resistance doesn't apply to a +1 sword. The Dust is not producing a spell or spell-like ability. Even though the Poison spell is required to create the dust, the item does not cast Poison as a spell or spell-like ability. So, spell resistance doesn't apply.

It's a very poor editing job, but the "nonetheless" in the description indicates that failing the saving throw also results in the stunning effect. It only makes sense to use the word "nonetheless" if there's some reason to expect that a saving throw would negate an effect (the stunning) that would otherwise occur. If there had only been the intent to do the stunning on a successful save, the "nonetheless" wouldn't be there.

As for being in the spread, there are numerous was to get around that (Mage Hand, Unseen Servant, send a party member/summoned creature/charmed or dominated foe/etc)

[Harrow]

It's a very poor editing job, but the "nonetheless" in the description indicates that failing the saving throw also results in the stunning effect. It only makes sense to use the word "nonetheless" if there's some reason to expect that a saving throw would negate an effect (the stunning) that would otherwise occur. If there had only been the intent to do the stunning on a successful save, the "nonetheless" wouldn't be there.


I would like to point out that although that is implied, it is only implied and in no way RAW. It was undeniably the intention, but nothing actually says that you're stunned on a failed save.

[Curmudgeon]

That's where we disagree - I think the class is definitely worth the effort. I can understand you not liking it though since it so thoroughly flattens the rogue's toes, especially with the Cunning Strike ruling.
I don't take any "rulings" at my table except my own. I take the RAW, with all the errata. The FAQ is mostly correct, but it doesn't get any free passes where it disagrees with the actual rules.

Even ignoring all of Mike Mearls's erroneous "rulings" (and, chiefly, the arguments they cause), what's left in the Factotum class is still too poorly written to be worth the required time.

[Morithias]

I usually don't ban stuff. I find my players usually keep in line after a line or two.

"Rosewood is a world that has fought off an alien invasion, a demonic god, and killed at least 3 elder evils. Do you honestly think you're the first person to think of this stuff?"

Geneva conventions. If you start using such tactics, all bets are off, and people see you as open game.

Usually keeps them in line, once they realize that I'm a DM who doesn't just tell you "stop doing" that, no I do it right back.

[Tyndmyr]

Factotum is flexible and decently solid, but it isn't broken, and is not hard to use.


[LIST]
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A Factotum is proficient with only light armor. What happens, with respect to "spellcasting", if the Factotum gains proficiency with heavier armor? Also, That's exactly backward; the Factotum uses only SLAs.

If the factotum seriously wants to waste feats on heavy armor proficiency, who cares? He then has heavy armor and can cast a few SLAs. Meh.


Inspiration: IPs are gained at the beginning of each encounter. What's an encounter? We know an encounter starts when you roll initiative, but there could be social encounters, trap encounters, & c.; those just don't have explicit rules, so a DM call here could make a big difference. Mike Mearls, writing as "Guest Sage", declared this ability to also grant full IPs at the end of an encounter, considerably muddying the waters seeing as how (1) that's not what the class feature says; and (2) the end of an encounter isn't defined in the RAW.

Yes, encounters come in several flavors. So? The encounter begins when you encounter the thingie, whatever it is. This isn't really a major source of dispute.


Arcane Dilettante: Keeps referring to spells, even though the Factotum has no spells. These are chosen "at the start of each day", which isn't defined. Also, can the Factotum mimic spells which are Sorcerer-only or Wizard-only, or are they limited to spells which are common to both classes? Finally, they say the Factotum can apply metamagic feats. Are these the metamagic feats which apply to spells, or the metamagic feats which apply to SLAs?

The Factotum spells are those which they have access to. Problem solved, obviously.
There's only a couple wizard/sorc only spells. I see no reason why these would be inaccessible, but given that there are only a few of them, and the factotum has slower casting progression and only a few spells anyway, I can't imagine this is a major issue either way.

Metamagic feats means metamagic feats. This is straight up reading. "Quicken SLA" functions like a metamagic feat, but it is different. By RAW, these would also function, because SLA. However, because of the number of spells available, if you're going way down this rabbit hole, there are much better classes to choose.


Cunning Strike: No specification that this gets an override to the standard stacking rule, but Mike Mearls ignored the RAW and said it did as "Guest Sage".

What override? Physical damage always stacks.

If you mean multiple uses via inspiration points, I suppose you could opt to allow that. Kind of a waste of inspiration, normally, and is not required by RAW.


Opportunistic Piety: Does this allow for cheaper/free Divine Metamagic in a Factotum/divine caster build?

Uses of Opportunistic Piety are not turning attempts, even if they can be used to emulate that under certain circumstances.


Cunning Surge: Has no specification about number of uses per turn.

That is correct. No limit exists.


Cunning Breach: :smallconfused: There's no such mechanism in the D&D game.

Page 17. It penetrates SR. The wording is a little sloppy, but it's not particularly incomprehensible.


Cunning Dodge: Is actual movement from the Factotum's square involved, or a change in status to/from prone?

This is no different than Evasion, really. If dodging without moving bothers you, you won't make it out of core without frustration.


Cunning Brilliance: This is explicit in being strictly limited to Extraordinary class abilities. Then Mike Mearls, Idiot Guest Sage, said it's "reasonable to assume" sneak attack (an untyped class ability) is Extraordinary. :smallfurious:

Problems with people talking in other mediums are not problems with the class as written.


Outside of the book, the Font of Inspiration (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) Factotum-only feat: quadratic or linear IP gain?.


It is very obviously is 1 pt for first time, 2 for second, 3 for third, and so on.

[lunar2]

I try to avoid banning things if at all possible. That said I do have a small list of things that I ban for being broken to the extent that attempting to fix them simply isn't worth the effort.

Banned:
Books:
Weapons of Legacy


weapons of legacy? broken? the premade legacy items are barely worth the cost, and even the items specifically made for a build don't even break WBL as badly as basic item crafting (as in, just pick an item and make it, no cost reducers). this is actually a great book for reducing both the christmas tree and magic mart effects.

[Axinian]

I only rarely ban things out of concern for balance, my players are usually pretty good at deciding for themselves what is and isn't acceptable. I usually only ban things for world building reasons (as in, I don't like the implications of this spell existing in my high magic setting). There's a list of what I've banned on my campaign setting website.

Then again, I play Pathfinder pretty much exclusively, so the sheer volume of stuff that needs banning is lower (not that Paizo is much better at balancing anything mind you.)




weapons of legacy? broken? the premade legacy items are barely worth the cost, and even the items specifically made for a build don't even break WBL as badly as basic item crafting (as in, just pick an item and make it, no cost reducers). this is actually a great book for reducing both the christmas tree and magic mart effects.

He's probably banning it because of the Legacy Champion prestige class.

[Vedhin]

Factotum is flexible and decently solid, but it isn't broken, and is not hard to use.

Factotum is indeed riddled with confusing statements. I agree with Curmudgeon about just using Savant.



If the factotum seriously wants to waste feats on heavy armor proficiency, who cares? He then has heavy armor and can cast a few SLAs. Meh.

The point isn't heavy armor, the point is the using spells as SLAs, which Factotum does not do.



Yes, encounters come in several flavors. So? The encounter begins when you encounter the thingie, whatever it is. This isn't really a major source of dispute.

Waht is a "thingie", in game terms. Do traps count? What about talking to someone?
Not to mention that by RAW, Inspiration points accumulate without cap, unless there is errata saying otherwise.



The Factotum spells are those which they have access to. Problem solved, obviously.

That would be exactly 0 spells, and circular logic. The Factotum has SLAs with limitations, like Warlocks having somatic components.



Metamagic feats means metamagic feats. This is straight up reading. "Quicken SLA" functions like a metamagic feat, but it is different. By RAW, these would also function, because SLA. However, because of the number of spells available, if you're going way down this rabbit hole, there are much better classes to choose.

Metamagic feats do not affect SLAs.



What override? Physical damage always stacks.

Bonuses from the same source do not stack.



Uses of Opportunistic Piety are not turning attempts, even if they can be used to emulate that under certain circumstances.

Uh, Opportunistic Piety specifically lets you turn undead. So it gives you turning attempts.



That is correct. No limit exists.

And that doesn't strike you as a bad idea?



Page 17. It penetrates SR. The wording is a little sloppy, but it's not particularly incomprehensible.

Spell resistance checks don't exist, and are certainly not attempted by the target.



This is no different than Evasion, really. If dodging without moving bothers you, you won't make it out of core without frustration.

Evasion does not specify movement. This does.



Problems with people talking in other mediums are not problems with the class as written.

The point is that this opens a huge can of worms, including spellcasting not being listed as Ex, Sp, or Su. According to this, it defaults to Ex, and so does the Fighter's bonus feats, and a bunch of other things.



It is very obviously is 1 pt for first time, 2 for second, 3 for third, and so on.

Not obviously at all. Until we found discussions online, my group was convinced it was 1 Inspiration Point per feat.

[3drinks]

I don't ban anything outside of the Leadership feat, Celerity spell(s) and the Time Stop spell. Basically the stuff that blows wide open the action economy. It's playing the Magic: the Gathering variant Commander and opening every game with a Sol Ring - it's ridiculous.

[Alabenson]

He's probably banning it because of the Legacy Champion prestige class.

The problem is Legacy Champion is broken on one end of the spectrum, and the entire rest of the book is utter garbage on the other end.

The premade items are awful and the system for making your own is an incomprehensible mess which at best gives you an item that might be worth it for one specific build, but probably not.
Also, I seem to be in the minority on these forums, but the magic mart concept doesn't bother me in the least (in fact I've actually embraced it for certain portions of my worldbuilding), so the fact that it reduces the Christmas tree effect is utterly meaningless to me.

Basically, the book is a major source of potential headaches that offers literally nothing of value in return, hence why it is the only book I have completely banned outright.

[Harrow]

I would say the factotum is poorly written, but not poorly balanced.

A Factotum can "mimic a spell as a spell-like ability" which I think the author intended to by interchangeable with using spells "as if they were spell-like abilities". They don't have ASF because although they do cast spells, their spells act like Spell-like abilities. I really don't see where the confusion here is.

Anything with a CR is an encounter. Yes, inspiration points do gather without cap, but I've never seen a Factotum gain them faster than he would like to use them.

Factotum casting is explicitly off of the Sorcerer/Wizard. If it's a Wizard spell it's not a Sorcerer/Wizard spell, so they can't prepare it. A Factotum does not have Spell-like Abilities, they have spells that act like spell-like abilities. Because they are spells and despite the fact that they act like spell-like abilities because a specific exception is given, you can apply normal metamagic feats to them. Because they act like Spell-likes and have no other exceptions, feats like Empower Spell-like ability also work on them.

Cunning Strike is not bonus damage. Bonus stacking rules do not apply. It is a non-action with no cap given for how much you can use at once, so you can use multiple inspiration points for multiple dice of sneak attack damage.

Opportunistic Piety let's you turn undead without turning attempts. Opportunistic Piety is a separate ability from the Turn Undead Cleric and Paladin class features, although it has a similar use. You can attempt to turn undead, but you don't use a Turning Attempt to do it.

Cunning Surge is limited by the number of Inspiration points you have.

Just drop the last sentence on Cunning Breach. I would assume the author thought Spell Resistance was an opposed check between SR and Caster level. Which would actually make it much more useful, especially if you were allowed to fail at will. However, this not being the case, ignore it. It doesn't mean anything.

Cunning Dodge has flavor text. Nothing specifies that you actually have to leave your square. It has no bearing on actual mechanics. Note that Evasion says you have to "leap or twist out of the way".

It's a 19th level ability, practically a capstone, that only lasts one minute, once per day. I see no problem in letting all class abilities without (Su) or (Sp) be emulated with this ability.

As for Font of Inspiration, "Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1". The number of points you gain increases by one. This seems fairly obvious to me.

[Psyren]

Factotum is indeed riddled with confusing statements. I agree with Curmudgeon about just using Savant.

Savant is a very horrible class and he is really overexaggerating what Factotum needs to be clear. Hundreds of people have been playing one just fine, his real motivation for banning it is that it obsoletes his favorite class. I would rather use CA Ninja than Savant.

[Jormengand]

As for Font of Inspiration, "Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1". The number of points you gain increases by one. This seems fairly obvious to me.

Is that the total number you gain from all takings of the feat (meaning that if you take the feat twice, you gain 1 IP which then increases by one) or the number each time you take the feat (meaning that if you take the feat twice, you gain 1 IP, and then 1 IP which then increases by one)? It's not clear.

[Vedhin]

Savant is a very horrible class and he is really overexaggerating what Factotum needs to be clear. Hundreds of people have been playing one just fine, his real motivation for banning it is that it obsoletes his favorite class. I would rather use CA Ninja than Savant.

Maybe it's just me then. I've always found Factotum to be confusing and unclear. And why the Savant hate? It's been a decent class in my experience.

[Curmudgeon]

Cunning Strike is not bonus damage. Bonus stacking rules do not apply. It is a non-action with no cap given for how much you can use at once, so you can use multiple inspiration points for multiple dice of sneak attack damage.
That seems like an unfounded claim to me. Cunning Strike is the source of damage that's added to your weapon damage if you hit; i.e., it's bonus damage. Also, a general rule about stacking doesn't get ignored simply because you (or Mike Mearls) say so. What rules source can you cite to back up either of these highlighted sentences?

As for Font of Inspiration, "Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1". The number of points you gain increases by one. This seems fairly obvious to me.
Yes, it's obvious. The total number of inspiration points you gain from all instances of Font of Inspiration increases by 1. Right? There needs to be an explicit mention to this effect, because the default rule for feats would be that you would gain 0 IPs each time you take this feat after the first time.

(Oh, did you somehow interpret this as the additional IPs gained increases by 1? Is it still so obvious?)

[Psyren]

Maybe it's just me then. I've always found Factotum to be confusing and unclear. And why the Savant hate? It's been a decent class in my experience.

2nd-level spells at ECL 9 (ECL 14 for divine) does not a good class make. 3d6 SA over 20 levels is even worse than the Lurk's progression. A Bard beats it in nearly every conceivable way, never mind a Factotum.

[Kuulvheysoon]

2nd-level spells at ECL 9 (ECL 14 for divine) does not a good class make. 3d6 SA over 20 levels is even worse than the Lurk's progression. A Bard beats it in nearly every conceivable way, never mind a Factotum.

Hells, even the True Thief variant Lurk beats it in pretty much every way. Which is kinda sad, to tell you the truth.

[Vedhin]

2nd-level spells at ECL 9 (ECL 14 for divine) does not a good class make. 3d6 SA over 20 levels is even worse than the Lurk's progression. A Bard beats it in nearly every conceivable way, never mind a Factotum.

I guess it is just me then.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, it's obvious. The total number of inspiration points you gain from all instances of Font of Inspiration increases by 1. Right? There needs to be an explicit mention to this effect, because the default rule for feats would be that you would gain 0 IPs each time you take this feat after the first time
What? :smallconfused:


Benefits: When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 1 inspiration point.
What about that is in any way unclear?

[QUOTE}Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier. [/QUOTE]
The first time you get one. The second time you get two. The third time you get three. Nothing in the text suggests retroactive recalculation.

[Divayth Fyr]

Couldn't the whole FoI thing be solved by saying it falls under the stacking rules (since it doesn't say each taking stacks with itself), so every time the feat is taken, the old bonus is lost, and we gain a new one (which is 1 point higher)?

Also, if we'd want to argue RAW the feat is useless anyway, since there is nothing saying we gain the bonus inspiration at the start of a new encounter (as opposed to a one-time bonus when taking the feat) ;)

[Morithias]

Couldn't the whole FoI thing be solved by saying it falls under the stacking rules (since it doesn't say each taking stacks with itself), so every time the feat is taken, the old bonus is lost, and we gain a new one (which is 1 point higher)?

Also, if we'd want to argue RAW the feat is useless anyway, since there is nothing saying we gain the bonus inspiration at the start of a new encounter (as opposed to a one-time bonus when taking the feat) ;)

You know that first thought actually makes the feat make sense.

[No brains]

I wanted my medium sorcerer to hold out his snake familiar so it could bite people without entering their square. No one lets me do it. :smallannoyed::smalltongue:

I honestly need to get into more games before I can see the horrors of banned material in action. That said, I can accept banning as a way of saying, "Arguing about whether we can play the game like this or not is less fun than actually playing the game in an established way." Sure it can hamper the active imaginations of players, but it only slightly lowers the maximum fun ceiling while drastically raising the fun floor.

[Feint's End]

Couldn't the whole FoI thing be solved by saying it falls under the stacking rules (since it doesn't say each taking stacks with itself), so every time the feat is taken, the old bonus is lost, and we gain a new one (which is 1 point higher)?

So if I take the psionic talent feat from PF I'd just get 1 more per extra feat I spent on it? I don't think that's RAI.

On a more serious note. Why all the rant on the Factotum? I can't understand how it is comprehended as such a bad class design. I honestly think the only ppl having problem with the class are those who look for RAW and optimization in general resulting in less than 5% (at most) of the actual playerbase. And since I count myself in this base it's probably less.
Factotum is probably bad written in some parts but nothing that can't be fixed in less than a minute work (or even less if you just read over it the way it was intended).

All in all? It's just bad to read everything word for word. Sometimes it's just better to go over a text and probably you'll understand what the person intended to achieve with this class then.
Are Factotums broken? I can't see anything indicating this point. I honestly think they are probably the most balanced skillmonkey. Only exception might be Gestalt but then again ... you are playing gestalt and shouldn't complain about broken combos.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, if we'd want to argue RAW the feat is useless anyway, since there is nothing saying we gain the bonus inspiration at the start of a new encounter (as opposed to a one-time bonus when taking the feat) ;)
... which leads back to my original point: the reason to ban the Factotum class is that everything about it is written poorly, and it's too much of a headache to revise nearly every sentence. As is, we've got something fitting a class exercise from an ESL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESL) course — on 2-for-1 margarita night. :smallwink:

[Jormengand]

What? :smallconfused:


What about that is in any way unclear?

[QUOTE}Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.
The first time you get one. The second time you get two. The third time you get three. Nothing in the text suggests retroactive recalculation.[/QUOTE]

But is that "You gain an extra 2 IP" or "You will have gained a total of 2 IP"?

[Divayth Fyr]

So if I take the psionic talent feat from PF I'd just get 1 more per extra feat I spent on it? I don't think that's RAI.
No, it is not (since we know what how they want it to work - by giving +2, +3, +4 and so on, all stacking) - but that doesn't mean the intention was the same here. After all, 1 point of inspiration is 10% of what a 20th level Factotum would have, while 1 power point is from around 0,29% to 1,4% of the pool of a 20th level psionic class (not counting Soulknife nor any bonus points from ability scores).

[LTwerewolf]

Seems like a lot of people go out of their way to try to misunderstand things. It's really not that complicated. "But RAW isn't clear!!" So? A lot of things in this game are far less clear.

[Curmudgeon]

Seems like a lot of people go out of their way to try to misunderstand things. It's really not that complicated. "But RAW isn't clear!!" So? A lot of things in this game are far less clear.
So you're saying that you like things that are unclear, and all the arguments discussions which result — that that lack of clarity, in fact, enhances your game-playing experience? Because otherwise I don't see a message in your statement.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But is that "You gain an extra 2 IP" or "You will have gained a total of 2 IP"?
Where on earth are you getting that? Even if we're doing close reading, the word used is gain, present tense.

Also, I'm with LTwerewolf here-- almost all of these issues seem to stem from people reading RAW to a "drowning heals" degree. In most cases of debate, RAI is fairly straightforwards.

[Curmudgeon]

Where on earth are you getting that? Even if we're doing close reading, the word used is gain, present tense.
Yes, you gain n IPs from Font of Inspiration. Is that from all instances, or just the current one? The tense is not the issue; it's feat stacking (or, by default, the lack of it) which makes this unclear.

Assume a Factotum with an INT mod of +5. The normal rule would be, for taking the feat multiple times:

You gain 1 IP from Font of Inspiration.
You gain 1 IP from Font of Inspiration.
You gain 1 IP from Font of Inspiration.
You gain 1 IP from Font of Inspiration.
You gain 1 IP from Font of Inspiration.
That's a total, mind you, for taking the feat 5 times:

1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once. You see, there's no general rule prohibiting taking a feat multiple times; you just don't benefit from doing so. So when Font of Inspiration says
Special: You can take this multiple times. ... The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier. ... they're not saying anything out of the ordinary in that first line, but they are saying something special about the feat in the last line. Normally, you could take Font of Inspiration as many times as you want, but the feat creates an exception to that usual rule. The problem is parsing the text between those two lines, given that the opening line is redundant and the last imposes an unusual condition. According to the basic rules about feats, the Special section provides "additional facts about the feat"; thus, by default, statements there apply to the feat generally rather than just individual instances of it: you gain 2 inspiration points from Font of Inspiration if you take the feat a second time, and that's a Special additional fact about the feat, not just the second instance of the feat.

[Zanos]

It seems like you have to intentionally misread FoI to come away with any other reading besides taking it once gives you +1, taking it twice gives +3 net, and taking it three times gives a +6 net.

I hadn't even considered any other possible interpretation until people mentioned them in this thread.

[TuggyNE]

I hadn't even considered any other possible interpretation until people mentioned them in this thread.

That's the beauty of the Internet: you get to see far more viewpoints, however apparently stupid each may be, and face the challenge of showing why those other viewpoints, however plausible on the surface, are not merely different but wrong.

In this case I'm not actually sure there is any provably wrong interpretation of FoI, which suggests it's poorly worded; at the very least it's trivial to misinterpret it.

[Psyren]

You see, there's no general rule prohibiting taking a feat multiple times; you just don't benefit from doing so.

You should probably quote the whole rule if you're going to make this argument. Or did you intentionally leave out the part that weakens yours?


If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

FoI very clearly "indicates otherwise."


Special: You can take this multiple times. Each time you take this feat after the first time, the number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1 (for example, you gain 2 inspiration points if you take the feat a second time). The maximum number of times you can take this feat is equal to your Intelligence modifier.

Therefore, taking it more than once does have a beneficial effect; the effect given above.

[Scow2]

But it doesn't say the effects stack, unlike, say, Toughness, which DOES explicitly say the effects stack.

It sounds like successively taking Font of Inspiration modifies the number of inspiration points you gain from the first one, increasing the number by 1 for each successive taking of the feat.

There is a beneficial effect of taking the feat multiple times. But it doesn't look like it leads to 1+2+3+4+5 = 15. Instead, it looks like 1-> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5.

[Deremir]

those idiotic "double weapons":smallannoyed: like the double bladed sword! that thing would never work! even if you trained to use it your entire life someone who spent half that time training with a regular sword would trounce whoever was using the double weapon

[Scow2]

those idiotic "double weapons":smallannoyed: like the double bladed sword! that thing would never work! even if you trained to use it your entire life someone who spent half that time training with a regular sword would trounce whoever was using the double weapon

Darth Maul disagrees.

[Red Fel]

Darth Maul disagrees.

Which half of him?

[Grod_The_Giant]

"The number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1." That sure as all heck sounds like you're getting new points for taking the feat. If it was meant to just grant one extra point each time you take it, why have the fancy exponential scaling at all?

[NickChaisson]

So far I have not banned anything. Whenever my players do something to get infinite wishes/become gods/one hit everything or whatever. The other players hop on board too and as long as everyone is having fun we play out the game (which usually involves them winning at everything and becoming the most powerful beings in existence) then when its over I just ask "So, you want that to be the actual campaign or do you want to play normally" and they give me an answer and we go from there. Either way, I get to reuse the campaign they didnt play ^_^

I have had many rule arguments with a few of my players, we usually reach a compromise though. I explain what I dislike about a certain thing and we usually work on it.

[Divayth Fyr]

"The number of inspiration points you gain increases by 1." That sure as all heck sounds like you're getting new points for taking the feat. If it was meant to just grant one extra point each time you take it, why have the fancy exponential scaling at all?
Because the developers often had problems with correctly wording what do they want to do? On a sidenote, are there other feats which you could take more than once that double the amount of a limited resource when taken four times? Four FoI (if they did stack that way) give us 10 IP - which is what a 20th level Factotum has as his normal max.

[TuggyNE]

On a sidenote, are there other feats which you could take more than once that double the amount of a limited resource when taken four times?

Yes. Core's Extra Turning gives +4 each time. If taken four times, it will more than double daily turns for any character with less than 36 Cha.

[ShurikVch]

PlShep makes an already strong class waaaaaaay to powerful. Which class? :smallamused: PlShep need only Wildshape, and we also have wildshaping ranger... and monk...

[Sith_Happens]

On a more serious note. Why all the rant on the Factotum? I can't understand how it is comprehended as such a bad class design. I honestly think the only ppl having problem with the class are those who look for RAW and optimization in general resulting in less than 5% (at most) of the actual playerbase. And since I count myself in this base it's probably less.
Factotum is probably bad written in some parts but nothing that can't be fixed in less than a minute work (or even less if you just read over it the way it was intended).

While I do believe Curmudgeon is exaggerating the functional problems with the Factotum, one thing that's clear is that for some reason it uses a starkly different writing style than every other class in the game, which does not for clear design make.

[Turion]

Which class? PlShep need only Wildshape, and we also have wildshaping ranger... and monk...

Actually, the class also requires Greensinger Initiate, which in turn requires spontaneous SNA conversion. You can qualify by being an initiate of the Nightbringers, but this requires DM permission (i.e. not available by default), and would probably restrict your choice of plane to Mabar, thematically.

[ShurikVch]

Actually, the class also requires Greensinger Initiate, which in turn requires spontaneous SNA conversion. You can qualify by being an initiate of the Nightbringers, but this requires DM permission (i.e. not available by default), and would probably restrict your choice of plane to Mabar, thematically.
But to spontaneous cast SNA not necessary to be a druid.
Spirit Shaman can cast SNA as much as he want, and all his spells are spontaneous.
The same with arcane casters who take dip in Wyrm Wizard or feat Arcane Disciple (Animal, Beastmaster, Fey or Gnome)

[Turion]

But to spontaneous cast SNA not necessary to be a druid.
Spirit Shaman can cast SNA as much as he want, and all his spells are spontaneous.
The same with arcane casters who take dip in Wyrm Wizard or feat Arcane Disciple (Animal, Beastmaster, Fey or Gnome)

True, but spirit shamans don't get wildshape, which means they don't qualify, either. You could get in with SS1/WSRgr4, which gives you wild shape, druid casting, and an animal companion, but you've lost your 9ths from spirit shaman, making it more of an entry tax unless you're planning to progress ranger casting. In the end, I end up saying something to the tune of "why didn't I just go with druid?" The other combos I've found arrive at the same place, only with three times as much trouble.

Speaking of entry taxes: I only do soft bans on material. I won't use Fickle Winds as a DM unless my players do it first. Gate, planar binding, shapechange, and shivering touch are also on the list, along with anything from Savage Species and Serpent Kingdoms. Binder is hard-banned unless the player sends me a ToM pdf with all images related to Dahlver Nar excised. :smalleek:

[Psyren]

But it doesn't say the effects stack, unlike, say, Toughness, which DOES explicitly say the effects stack.

It sounds like successively taking Font of Inspiration modifies the number of inspiration points you gain from the first one, increasing the number by 1 for each successive taking of the feat.

There is a beneficial effect of taking the feat multiple times. But it doesn't look like it leads to 1+2+3+4+5 = 15. Instead, it looks like 1-> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5.

Even if you read it that way (and I don't), that's still beneficial. Far moreso than his interpretation of "1+0+0+0+0 = 1."

[Kevingway]

A fun one is playing as a Drunken Master and seeing if you're allowed to wield the world as an improvised weapon--from then on, you're trying desperately to roll natural 1s. If you succeed, you break the planet.

[ShurikVch]

True, but spirit shamans don't get wildshape, which means they don't qualify, either. You could get in with SS1/WSRgr4, which gives you wild shape, druid casting, and an animal companion, but you've lost your 9ths from spirit shaman, making it more of an entry tax unless you're planning to progress ranger casting. In the end, I end up saying something to the tune of "why didn't I just go with druid?" The other combos I've found arrive at the same place, only with three times as much trouble.

Speaking of entry taxes: I only do soft bans on material. I won't use Fickle Winds as a DM unless my players do it first. Gate, planar binding, shapechange, and shivering touch are also on the list, along with anything from Savage Species and Serpent Kingdoms. Binder is hard-banned unless the player sends me a ToM pdf with all images related to Dahlver Nar excised. :smalleek:

PlShep is thematically interesting class.
Not everyone are powergamers.
Bard don't get 9ths by design, but people still play bards.

How about such build? -
Race: Deshada Dragon wyrmling (cold subtype, tiny, 1 HD, LA +1)
Sovereign Archetype: Loredrake
Feats: Magical Training, Precocious Apprentice, Sanctum Spell, Arcane Disciple (Animal), Greensinger Initiate
Class levels: Dragon Mystic 5/Wild Monk 6/Planar Shepherd 8+
Final CL: 16 (17 with LA buy-off), 8th lvl spells

[Suddo]

More like banning PHB because of the candle of invocation, to me.

In all honesty banning Player's Handbook wouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe allowing feats from it. Edit: And maybe Bard.

[Harrow]

In all honesty banning Player's Handbook wouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe allowing feats from it. Edit: And maybe Bard.

I like a lot of the items in the Players Handbook. But I wouldn't see anything wrong with playing in a game with PHB classes all banned. That would be entertaining actually.

And that's the only sort of reason I would ban something : For a themed campaign. If I wanted a psionics campaign, I would ban spells-per-day casters (I happen to know a group that tried this and no one ended up playing anything psionic. MoI, ToB, ToM, but no psionics). I would probably also ban anything that was too setting specific outside of that setting, such as the Spellguard of Silverymoon, which can be adapted to other settings but you really need some mythal equivalent for it to make sense.

[Razgriez]

Let's see here...

"Exotic Weapon/Armor Proficiency": Ok, I get it, some weapons are harder to wield than others, either in specific ways (Any of the "2 hands for Martial, 1 hand Exotic" and that some weapons are very complex in general to use. This makes perfect sense.... if the entire game was based on reality.

DnD is a game where Reality is in abstract for pretty much anything that doesn't involve breathing, or gravity (And even then, apparently drowning can heal you). By the mid levels, half the magic/psionic users are warping reality, summoning an army of angels/demons/extraplanar creatures/bears to them, or in erasing entire towns off the map with snaps of their fingers. This leads to an important question:

Why does it take basically everyone, 3 levels of their life to learn which end of their really fancy weapon to stick into the foe, while holding and swinging it without cutting one of their own limbs off, but every level a full progression caster gets unlocks some new way to destroy the world by manipulating energy into a way they desire? Likewise, why does this game insist on making me too incompetent to wear heavy plate when we've already established that reality is not exactly in full effect in a typical DnD game

What makes this matter worse, is two key things. A number of these weapons are exotic for no reason than "They're bigger/shinier" than the original weapon their based on (Great Spears/Bows, Goliath hammers, Elven Thinblades AKA: Rapiers/foils with Elven designs/lighter weight, etc) when this should be something more based on Attribute limits such as STR, or DEX. Apparently, the issue for me being unable to swing a Buster sword like "Fullblade" isn't that I might lack the strength to swing it, it's that apparently, it weighs too much, and is too long without taking special training with it (which makes Monkey Grip the much more stupid when it now says that to do the same trick with the similar damaging large creature sized Great sword, is that apparently, I'm just not holding the weapon right)

The second major issue, is that there are classes where this just shouldn't be an issue. The fighter for example, is supposed to be THE definitive weapon expert, but rather than even giving the fighter even say, "Knows how to wield Xnumber of Exotic weapons and wear this number of Exotic armors. To this day, it still takes homebrewers to borrow ideas typically from either Unearthed Arcana, PF, or ToB to fix this particular issue just for Fighters.
Short Version: It takes the same, if not more, effort to master sticking the pointy end of a sharp object into a foe, as it does to generate lethal amounts of fire/acid/lightning/ice/negative/positive energy into the same foe, or summon an army of angels/fiends/bears, or warp reality.

On a similar note:So we explored above a bit, that apparently, some of the explanations to why weapons and armor require exotic proficiency, is that their heavy and a bit unwieldly, but then switches between "It require's a special grip, or training into how to present the best armor face to deflect a blow" and back to 'It's too heavy/stiff/etc!!!" Which again, would make perfect sense, if DnD was trying to fairly accurately portray reality, but which it doesn't. Then, we have the armor material rules, which seem to indicate something happened the person handling equipment rules.

So out comes the DMG, and we get the rules for Mithril! What does it do (besides being a stronger material)? It makes your equipment, lighter! But it get's better, it also fixes lack of competence in armor! Yep, apparently, after saying "you lack training in wearing this armor" in the PHB, we now have the DMG telling you "a simple weight reduction from higher grade metal gives you competence in wearing bulky armor". Now granted this wouldn't be a problem, if DnD had some level of consistency when it comes to reality, as armor is one the major factors (Along with fit and range of movement) in armor's effectiveness, but it still doesn't explain how it allows someone with no training in that grade of armor, to suddenly wear it because it's considered to be "Lighter"

So clearly this must apply to weapons too, right? errr... no. For reasons where the only logical answer is "Gameplay "balance" (What little there is in the first place when it comes to linear weapon wielders vs Quadratic wizards) so as not to step on Adamantium weapons, apparently reducing the weight on weapons makes them no easier to wield.:smallconfused:
Short version: the game designers can not seem to decide where to even set the realism level on equipment, allowing for special materials that are lighter suddenly granting competence to wear heavy armors made from it and perform backflips in them,to even those lacking the training to use them but the same material used on weapons, just makes them lighter.


Let's look at 4 games here, DnD 3.5, Warhammer Fantasy RPG, TES V:Skyrim, and Final Fantasy XIV ARR. All 4 have shields, but all 4 have different ways of handling how shields work.

WHF RPG: Shields grant you a free action to block with it, pretty vital when a single hit and some good damage rolls can mean you'll be probably dead, severely crippled permanently, or burning a vital Fate point.

Skyrim: Boosts armor, reduces physical damage, can spend a few points of a fairly easy to come by resource (that is now basically: limitless) to learn some neat tricks that expand shield bashing into it's own awesome fighting style, block annoying arrows, and let you tank a dragon's breath or archmages blasting spells, like a Boss/Dovahkin. Also can be enchanted to provide even more awesome effects, making it a useful choice for Light armor wearing, Sword and Board builds, and keeping overall item carry weight down. Can block at any time with a simple press of a button to boot!

FFXIV: ARR : Due to Block being a calculation relying on your Attributes, and the RNG, Shields instead carry a Block Strength (Which is added with the user's strength) to determine how much received damage is reduced when blocking, and a Block rate (which is added with a user's DEX attribute) to determine the chance a user has to block. Smaller shields block more often, but for less reduction, while larger shields trade block rate for better damage reduction (and the Paladin's relic simply has large amounts of both!) Additionally, shields come with attribute boosts, making it a useful option for the 3 classes that can use them, and absolutely vital for the Gladiator/Paladin's Sword and Board fighting style.

DnD:After figuring out how to hold the shield correctly (noticing a trend here?) The character get's the option of either holding out his/her shield passively in hopes that the enemy doesn't figure to just swing their weapon harder/faster/around the shield. BUT WAIT Hold on, you can also do a shield bash... which does very little damage.

OR you can spend an extremely large pile of money to add +X and there for limit your foe to only Power attacking somewhat, and maybe miss on the 3rd and 4th attack, and float so you can do the standard obligatory glass cannon/tripper 2 handed Great sword/Spiked chain weapon build.

Or, if you spend enough of your hard earned real life cash to buy enough rule expansion books with additional options of those ever precious Feat slots (You know, the same ones you need to turn your average Fighter into a somewhat competent swordsman/women?) you can become competent enough to make a shield build useful!.... hope you have spells to back up the offense.

OR! You can become a fighter, and get a Tower Shield, which can be used as cover. And it's actually fairly decent.
Short Version: Shields are useless at first, and require significant investment to make useful, once again adding to the long list of questions as to how, when compared to the ease of defensive spells a magic user has, this even remotely counts as "Balanced

Considering this, part of me has to wonder if the infamous "Iron Heart Surge Divides by Zero" joke/debate was started not by someone not considering the RAW's implications, but rather a sly "apology" of sorts: "Ok ok, we get it, front line warriors deserve the chance to warp reality, but don't cry to us when you end up destroying the universe!":smallbiggrin:

[Turion]

PlShep is thematically interesting class.
Not everyone are powergamers.
Bard don't get 9ths by design, but people still play bards.

How about such build? -
Race: Deshada Dragon wyrmling (cold subtype, tiny, 1 HD, LA +1)
Sovereign Archetype: Loredrake
Feats: Magical Training, Precocious Apprentice, Sanctum Spell, Arcane Disciple (Animal), Greensinger Initiate
Class levels: Dragon Mystic 5/Wild Monk 6/Planar Shepherd 8+
Final CL: 16 (17 with LA buy-off), 8th lvl spells

My point was more that, without Dragon content (wild monk), you have two ways to get in: Druid and what amounts to Druid. Spirit Shaman + Wild shape Ranger is almost exactly the same as just Druid, but more complicated. It has similar flavor, and pretty much the only difference is some small, weird druidy things, and a lower CL. It's kinda like qualifying for Archmage with Assassin: technically possible, but not really worth the effort..

[ShurikVch]

My point was more that, without Dragon content (wild monk), you have two ways to get in: Druid and what amounts to Druid. Actually, it's not true.
I just used the most baffling example - monk.
(Even if Wild Monk still thematically fit in)
You can also grab Wildshape via moonspeaker, lion of Talisid or abolisher.


It's kinda like qualifying for Archmage with Assassin: technically possible, but not really worth the effort.. Pre-epic? How?

[Vertharrad]

It's kinda like qualifying for Archmage with Assassin

How is this possible? How do they get 7th lvl spells or the other 5th or higher level spells needed to qualify?

[Zombulian]

Someone was going to say this eventually so I guess I'll just say it now. ToB is absolutely ridiculous in many regards and definitely banworthy in a lot of campaigns. Specifically the crusader and the warblade. A crusader can dish out ridiculous damage and then still tank like a boss and heal just as well. The warblade gets all of his readied maneuvers back simply by making a full attack action.

One broken thing in particular is the 1d2 crusader infinite damage loop.

Why. Why would you do that.

[Curmudgeon]

Even if you read it that way (and I don't), that's still beneficial. Far moreso than his interpretation of "1+0+0+0+0 = 1."
Did you fail to notice I said that would be the effect without a stacking override, which is why reading FoI's Special section as granting 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 would be a perfectly plausible improvement over that default?

[Squirrel_Dude]

Normally, on the few chances I DM, I tend to ban books or sources that I haven't read prior to the start of that campaign, or at the point the player would want to use it. Case in point, if I haven't read Ultimate Magic, or don't feel familiar with it, I'd prefer you didn't start using it immediately. I'll try and look through it if I find the time. If your character dies, and I've read it by then, I'll be more open to allowing the book.

There are also thematic bans, or at least the expectation that players won't be playing a character that is a complete fish out of water that acts like everything is normal. IE. A Suli Dervish of Dawn in the middle of the Land of the Linnorm Kings.

Other than that, I simply ask that players don't try to break the game, build a cohesive party, and keep me up to date on what they are doing with their characters.

[Wings of Peace]

In full honesty I don't think I've ever banned anything outright in any of my campaigns. Don't get me wrong I've told players no a lot when they start trying to twist the grammar of their abilities (I had a guy try to claim ray of frost was an insta-gib because he was targeting the creatures brain which wouldnt be able to handle the temperature shift).

On the whole though I find communicative dming to be better, at least, for me and the people I game with. By communicative dming I mean that I constantly communicate with my players.

Before the campaign I ask what types of characters the players are considering, as they're building their characters I ask to be kept in the loop on their builds so I can get a feel for the sorts of challenges the group can handle (but also because this stage can provide insight into which players know the game better than others), and if during sessions one player is rocking too hard then yes they get knocked down a little down the road but I tell that player (not the whole group) out of character why and work with them to try and create some form of compensation that allows them to continue having fun their way while meshing better with the group dynamic.

Don't get me wrong doing things this way is a lot of work and requires some amount of system mastery to properly foresee problems before they happen but if my group all build high-op characters I figure "the universe accepts your challenge".