Suggestions for banned material

[No brains]

I might be starting a 3.5 game soon and I want some suggestion for spells, feats, classes, monsters, and other exploitative material that are completely inimical to a fun game.

I plan on being pretty free with my players because they are new to the system. I'm starting on level 1 up to whatever. I'm going to let them pick their ability values from 3 to 18 and letting them try any wacky thing they think they will enjoy playing. They can choose any class from tier 1 to commoner if they can make it compelling. Retraining can happen at every level and rebuilding quests aren't out of the question. That said, there needs to some limitation on what they can do so that I can get used to being a DM. I don't want them to break wealth-by-level or other advancement guidelines.

I already am excluding Sarruhks(sic) because of their busted ability and Truenamers because they're too esoteric, but I want to try to create a world of great possibilities that can still be fun.

[Particle_Man]

This might be useful:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3288.0

[Coidzor]

The Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821) Ban List is a good go-to resource, though not all of that is stuff you'd want to ban for actual play, so you'd have to take it with a grain of salt and double check it.

You'll also probably want to look over the Dysfunctional Rules Handbook. (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14536851)

[Kelb_Panthera]

First on spells:

Dump the polymorph line (alter self - polymorph any object) and the summons and calling spells (summon monster/nature's ally I-IX and planar ally/binding + gate). You might also lose the celerity line from PHB2. These are the most easily abused spells and the ones a noob is most likely to break the game with accidently.

Feats:

I can't think of any that are too bad by themselves so you probably don't have anything to worry about. The most abusive thing I can think of off the top of my head is using earth power with a torc of preservation to loop bestow power into nigh-infinite power points.

Classes:

You might consider banning some of the lowest tier classes that take serious op-fu chops to make viable characters; CW samurai, monk, etc. Drop truenamer, not because I think it's not useable as is but because it takes very specific options to keep its abilities operating normally. (If you disagree, please just let it go so this thread doesn't get derailed). You -might- consider dropping wizard and artificer for the sheer book-keeping; the wizard's during play book-keeping is absurd and the artificer's downtime book-keeping is even more so. Probably druid too since its animal companion and wildshape features can easily make the mundane warriors cry.

Monsters:

Fleshraker dinosaur (I forget which book) aught to be avoided as it's a bit more vicious than makes any sense for a creature of its CR and in particular too much as an animal companion. That Damn Crab (aka huge monstrous crab from stormwrack and that one WotC web article) is also just obscene. You'll probably want to avoid creatures that can destroy equipment such as rust monsters, black puddings, gray oozes and so on. You might want to just slowly back away from MM2 if you don't want to be blindsided by an inappropriately CR'ed monster, in particular the adamantine horror with its implosion and disjunction at will.

Those are all off the top of my head. I'm reasonably sure I missed some things, especially in spells and monsters.

[Pickford]

The Test of Spite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821) Ban List is a good go-to resource, though not all of that is stuff you'd want to ban for actual play, so you'd have to take it with a grain of salt and double check it.

You'll also probably want to look over the Dysfunctional Rules Handbook. (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14536851)

It has a lot of weird house rules.

ex: Fighter is banned, excluding dungeoncrasher

[eggynack]

It has a lot of weird house rules.

ex: Fighter is banned, excluding dungeoncrasher
That's not so odd. The list bans things from both extreme highs and lows of power level, to moderate things to a pretty massive slice in the middle. It's an interesting way to go about things, I think.

[Pickford]

That's not so odd. The list bans things from both extreme highs and lows of power level, to moderate things to a pretty massive slice in the middle. It's an interesting way to go about things, I think.

I'd be more interested to see how the classes considered weakest play.

[Coidzor]

It has a lot of weird house rules.

ex: Fighter is banned, excluding dungeoncrasher

Seems odd at first, since who doesn't love dipping Fighter for a level or two for feat prereqs, but it's one of the less niche rules you could've picked for an example, when one stops and thinks about it for a moment.

My recollection is that it forces one to treat Fighter as a class rather than a dip in order to help side-step onerous feat chains while also cutting down on schlub builds, like non-dungeoncrasher single-classed Fighters.

Considering the nature of the Test of Spite, and all, it makes sense they'd want to discourage things that are too below par.


I'd be more interested to see how the classes considered weakest play.

It was generally considered boring due to the lack of options and general whiffling and waffling about, as I recall.

But, hey, if you wanna throw something together, more power to you.

[eggynack]

I'd be more interested to see how the classes considered weakest play.
As Coidzor notes, that's a reasonable arena to have, but it is not the arena that this was. Presumably, there could be an arena filled with crappy classes, but it'd be a different thing. Anyway, that actually sounds kinda boring, relying on a bunch of pretty basic math stuff for a bunch of it, instead of the complicated play and counter-play that went into the test of spite.

[Sir Chuckles]

It also depends on your players.

I don't ban some spell lines, as my players are simply not aware enough to realize the potential power of Gate and Polymorph. In fact, the guy who mains Druid almost always does so as if he's a standard Fighter (Rarely wildshaping, almost never casting, using his animal companion as a pack mule, etc.)

I have two competent players. One is only competent outside of combat (In combat he's a Bard hiding and using Inspire Courage while he's on Tumblr.) and the other is, sadly, unable to play due to life. But when he did, we was willing to let, in his words, "The silly little munchkin and the band of misfits think they're gods in a world that I could easily rule."
'Twas glorious.

I don't even tell my players what I have banned, for the risk that they (Namely the munchkin) would attempt it.
That said, I really only ban three things: Ice Assassin, Shun the Dark Chaos, and Embrace the Dark Chaos.

[No brains]

One problem that I have is that I don't want to ban garbage classes because it can be fun to experience mistakes. Then again, party ECL can be broken by allowing someone who just wants to play an uneducated commoner. What are some good classes that could fit the bill of 'everyday slob' without being utterly helpless?

[Fax Celestis]

My banlist is as follows. Please note it will make your game very different than your typical 3.P game.


Allowed Content: All 3.5/PF, with some specific exemptions. Homebrew is encouraged but must be approved on a case-by-case basis. Use the magic item creation rules from MIC for custom items, and approve all custom items with me. Specific itemizations as follows:


The First Rule: You breaka mah gaem, I breaka yo faec. Be reasonable.
Broad-Spectrum Bans: Anything with 9th level casting is out. Anything that goes over 6 levels of casting is probably out. We are not using Multiclass Experience Penalties or Favored Classes. Planetouched races (incl. genasi) are not races: they are templates with the standard level adjustment they would have carried before.
Core: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard are banned. Leadership is banned. Paladins use the d20r variant. Spells and items that deal with alignment (helm of opposite alignment, detect evil, magic circle against law, etc.) don't exist. If you want to play an Expert, Adept, or Aristocrat, let me know and we can work out some actual features to make the classes more interesting. Adepts in particular should talk to me. If you somehow pick up wildshape, use the PHB-II Shapeshift variant instead.
Player's Handbook 2: If you want to play a Dragon Shaman, let's talk about how to make it a little better. Beguilers use the Bard's spell progression. Arcane Thesis applies once per spell, not once per metamagic per spell.
Expanded Psionics Handbook: Psion and Wilder are banned. Soulknife uses the Pathfinder version. Marksman, Dread, Cryptic, Aegis, and Tactician from Psionics Unleashed (PF) are available. Elan is an LA +1 template, not a race, and gives an additional +2 Int. Dromites and Blues use the Pathfinder variant.
Eberron Campaign Setting: Artificer is provisionally banned--you can make one, but it will probably not be approved. Subraces (wild elves, earth dwarves, azurin, etc.) are allowed to take dragonmarks related to their parent race.

BoED: Material from this book is probably inappropriate for this campaign, but if you're dead set on using something, we'll talk.
BoVD: Material from this book is probably inappropriate for this campaign, but if you're dead set on using something, we'll talk.
Cityscape: Invisible Spell is a +1 adjustment.
Complete Arcane: Warmage is exempted from the above ninths-ban. Wu Jen is banned. Extra Spell functions exactly like Expanded Knowledge.
Complete Divine: The base classes presented in this book are banned, except Favored Soul, which uses either Wisdom or Charisma (your choice) for spellcasting (instead of Wisdom/Charisma) and uses the Bard's spell progression and spells known mechanics.
Complete Psionic: The Ardent and Erudite are banned. The Divine Mind is okay, but is probably inappropriate for this campaign. If you want to play a Lurk, I would recommend looking up the Psychic Rogue instead.
Complete Warrior: The Samurai is terrible but is probably repairable. Talk to me if you want to use this.
Draconomicon: Dragonwrought Kobolds don't qualify for epic feats.
Dungeonscape: The Factotum's abilities are limited to once per round (so no Cunning Strike or Cunning Surge ridiculosity).
Heroes of Horror: The Dread Necromancer and Archivist are banned.
Magic of Incarnum: The Soulborn is terrible but is probably repairable. Talk to me if you want to use this.
Tome of Battle: Material from this book is probably inappropriate for this campaign, but if you're dead set on using something, we'll talk.
Tome of Magic: Shadowcasters are explicitly exempt from the no-ninths abilities above but are as-written. Alternatively, we can work out a six-level mystery progression and switch the uses/mystery/day table to a uses/mystery/encounter table.
Weapons of Legacy: Utilizing a Weapon of Legacy does not inflict penalties upon its wielder, but is limited to one per player. Custom Legacy Weapons are acceptable but must be cleared with me. The Legacy Champion cannot advance class features beyond their original class maximums (sorry, Hellfire Warlocks).
Pathfinder Material: Provisionally okay as long as it doesn't violate the above rules. I would prefer no Summoners, but we can talk.

This is not a comprehensive list, and I reserve the right to say no to something during the character creation process and to work with you to make something not broken that slipped by me if it turns up over the course of the game. If you want to utilize something but think it's terrible, talk to me and we can see about making it work.

[OldTrees1]

@Fax Celestis
I liked your list.

Why do you treat Beguiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer differently from each other? Warmage is the weakest (in abilities and spell selection) and I expect that is why you let it retain its 9ths progression. However you adapted Beguiler to a 6ths progression but banned Dread Necromancer instead of adapting it to a 6ths progression.

[Coidzor]

@Fax Celestis
I liked your list.

Why do you treat Beguiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer differently from each other? Warmage is the weakest (in abilities and spell selection) and I expect that is why you let it retain its 9ths progression. However you adapted Beguiler to a 6ths progression but banned Dread Necromancer instead of adapting it to a 6ths progression.

Minionmancy comes with its own barrel of monkeys, after all.

[Fax Celestis]

Minionmancy comes with its own barrel of monkeys, after all.

Precisely.

In addition, I originally drew these rules up for a socially-oriented game I'm currently running, which the beguiler was well-suited for but the dread necromancer wasn't. YMMV.

[Jeff the Green]

Fax's list is good. More heavy-handed than my taste, but were I to ban that much stuff, that'd be what I'd ban.

I don't ban much. BoEF (but only because I don't want to have to open it again in my lifetime) and guidance of the avatar are the only things that get outright preemptive 'no's. I'll put a tier-limit for some games (no 1 or 2 for my Ravenloft game; tier 1 nerfed to oblivion or banned outright and tier 2 nerfed more gently in my home setting, though mostly for flavor than anything else) and generally will encourage monks, fighters, ninja, and samurai to consider ToB instead.

I much prefer to bring everything weak up a notch. If you make all the fighters warblades, the druid's animal companion is no longer a better beatstick, and if the TWF character no longer has to spend all their feats on their core competency they pick up more interesting things to do.

[Spuddles]

Honestly, I wouldnt ban anything. Just tell your players to put together builds that they want to play. If you get a greenbound anthropomorphic bat druid and a half elf fighter with combat expertise, you have a problem.

If you get a barbarian, cleric, rogue, and wizard, there wont be may issues until level 7 to 10, and highly dependent on builds. By that point, players can be given options to retire characters that arent powerful enough, or you can allow them to gestalt adept or magewright spellcasting on to them. A barbarian with an (improved) familiar and half casting is solidly T3 and can be tons of fun to play.

I find that balance in actual play is less important than the boards make it out to be, given huge variance in play style and the unique role of a GM. Some peopleRe totally fine with swinging a sword while gandalf uses black tentacles. I would avoid making a big deal out of it with new players ESPECIALLY if they're there to experience roleplaying and not charop.

But YMMV.

[ericgrau]

I'd read their character sheets and do things case by case. Or you might start eliminating a lot of fun options just because they were associated with broken tricks that never see the light of day with your new players. Be suspicious of anything that appears in 500 strong builds on the forums, but don't necessarily ban it without taking a good look.

And generally new players will only stumble onto such things by accident so it shouldn't be hard to skim characters sheets for and remove the rare broken thing every now and then. You're more likely to overdo the bans than underdo them and it's easy to make a mess of the system when trying to "fix" it with too much zeal.

[Spuddles]

I'd read their character sheets and do things case by case or you could start eliminating a lot of fun options just because they were associated with power tricks that don't actually see play with your new players. Be suspicious of anything that appears in every power build on the forums, but don't necessarily ban it without taking a good look.

And generally new players will only stumble onto such things by accident so it shouldn't be hard to skim characters sheets for and remove the rare broken thing every now and then. You're more likely to overdo the bans than underdo them and it's easy to make a mess of the system when trying to "fix" it with too much zeal.

Yes, exactly this. Plus, it really sucks to not even know the rules of the system and have an entire other set of rules for the system. Hold off on the meta-rules until everyone's familiar with PHB material, at least.

[LordHenry]

Although many will disagree, but I have made very good experience with banning the celerity line and contingency and craft contingent spell.

1st of all they are op in my opinion, and secondly, it now is so much easier to design a wizard npc, not having to worry what contingencies he mght have up.

[AMFV]

I used to ban quite a few things. Lately I've discovered that not banning things and asking people to behave reasonably works infinitely better. The reason is this, if you ban things, people will try to weasel things past you, because that's how some people operate. If you work to facilitate things, people will rarely try to weasel things by and may even police themselves. I know that when I'm a player in games where lots of things are banned I'll try to squeeze more millage out of allowed things than I otherwise might.

So my suggestion, is ban nothing till you've seen it in play, and then discuss it with your players first, In my experience that method is far superior to blanket banning.

[MirddinEmris]

I used to ban quite a few things. Lately I've discovered that not banning things and asking people to behave reasonably works infinitely better. The reason is this, if you ban things, people will try to weasel things past you, because that's how some people operate. If you work to facilitate things, people will rarely try to weasel things by and may even police themselves. I know that when I'm a player in games where lots of things are banned I'll try to squeeze more millage out of allowed things than I otherwise might.

So my suggestion, is ban nothing till you've seen it in play, and then discuss it with your players first, In my experience that method is far superior to blanket banning.

It works only of everyone on the same level of system mastery (and decent human beings, of course). Banning intended not only for preventing power creep, but also for throwing out the trash that will dissapoint new players (like playing fighter and seing wizard or druid summoning something that fights better than you).

I remeber DMing a game where i banned core classes (with the exception of bard) and allowed ToB classes, speicalized casters (like beguiler, duskblade, dread necro and warmage) and some other classes (shadowcaster with a little fix, binder, warlock and other stuff i don't really remember). I've got this idea when dming for different group of two players, who took duskblade and beguiler classes. The game went pretty well.

[AMFV]

It works only of everyone on the same level of system mastery (and decent human beings, of course). Banning intended not only for preventing power creep, but also for throwing out the trash that will dissapoint new players (like playing fighter and seing wizard or druid summoning something that fights better than you).

I remeber DMing a game where i banned core classes (with the exception of bard) and allowed ToB classes, speicalized casters (like beguiler, duskblade, dread necro and warmage) and some other classes (shadowcaster with a little fix, binder, warlock and other stuff i don't really remember). I've got this idea when dming for different group of two players, who took duskblade and beguiler classes. The game went pretty well.

That's not really a ban to limit player power though, that's more of a fun experiment type thing. Or at least as a player I would see it that way. It would be a challenge, but not something I would have to work around. It'd also be a chance to try to some really fun classes that I haven't gotten to try.

It's your first para, that's really telling though. "If they're decent human beings". That's the fundamental core problem with banning things out of hand. People assume (rightly too) that they are being judged as not quite able to handle themselves, this sort of thing breeds vindictive problem behavior.

[Krobar]

Personally, I don't ban anything except epic spellcasting, if/when they get to epic levels. And Disjunction is an epic spell in my games.

That's about it. Some things get modified and limited, but not outright banned. If my players go overboard they know they'll regret it, because whatever they pull out, I'll throw right back at them. It's amazing how well that simple approach tends to work.

[Mutazoia]

Definitely ban anything you find on this site :)

[Phaederkiel]

the question is, what kind of game are you aiming at?

for one extreme example, i once mastered a survival campaign and banned all spells or items which could produce water, food or shelter.


if you want to have a typical dnd campaign, i would advise to keep the bookkeeping simple. that means no preparing casters (as clerics, wizards, especially druids), no bunches of followers (no summon monster, no Leadership feat, which is very broken, and no druids), as well as no polymorph abilities (no polymorph spells, and, you guess it: no druids).

this are all things that will make the game smoother for everyone at the beginning. Spontaneous casters will reduce the time players look at their spelllist a LOT, and having 4 combatants instead of 14 is a good thing for an inexperienced group.


Bans for power-reasons are simple: tell them you are inexperienced and that you will disallow tricks which were too strong. And then do not knee-jerk against fighty types.

[Suddo]

Just ban core outside of feats. I think it is the simplest way to go about it, yes it is extremely heavy handed. Obviously there is still abuse but the game plays a lot differently and often makes people think about what they want to play.

Edit: An maybe Prestige classes, and a few other things (maybe).

[CIDE]

Maybe I'm just spoiled with a very good and cool real-life group and everyone plays fair but... I'm seeing a lot of harsh and very unreasonable bans that seem like knee-jerk reactions to one or two bad apples. Or hell, just someone reading horror stories on sites like this.

[eggynack]

I don't think you need a jerk player to make bannings useful. You just need multiple players with a different standard of what's normal. Some people think that a core barbarian is the base line of the class, while other people think that a crazy ACF heavy chargebarian is the standard. Normal is subjective, and sometimes you need an objective standard to keep things in line.

[No brains]

'Simple' is definitely what I was going for, so maybe dumping prepared spells is a good idea. I also like the idea of eschewing follower/shapeshifter spells so that players only look at their sheets.

The tone of the campaign was largely a silly kick-in-the-door game. I might assume players stay fed/hydrated unless they decide to get hopelessly lost.

When I get more levels of DM, I was planning on running self-contained economies for towns so that the players can see everyone get richer for their efforts and not farm infinite gold. Does anyone have any tips for running living towns or even dungeons like that?

[TuggyNE]

Definitely ban anything you find on this site :)

WELP.

Banning is now forbidden. I hope you're happy. :smallannoyed:

[Mutazoia]

WELP.

Banning is now forbidden. I hope you're happy. :smallannoyed:

Ah but now banning banning is now banned...

[eggynack]

What we really need to do is merely allude to the banning protocol we wish to have in place, or else that banning protocol will be banned by merit of being on this website. However, now subtle references to banning procedures are banned because I just mentioned it. This could be tricky. Also, trickiness is banned, as is the banning of trickiness. This would be an impossible goal to achieve, except that impossibility became banned earlier in this sentence. I like to think that we can maintain optimism of this sort in these trying times, or we could, were optimism allowed within the game.

[Phaederkiel]

'Simple' is definitely what I was going for, so maybe dumping prepared spells is a good idea. I also like the idea of eschewing follower/shapeshifter spells so that players only look at their sheets.

The tone of the campaign was largely a silly kick-in-the-door game. I might assume players stay fed/hydrated unless they decide to get hopelessly lost.

I only gave the survival game as an example for a banlist tailormade for a certain adventure. And while it never is a bad idea to check if your players were clever enough to pack some rations (and mine were - one took the ENTIRE equipmentlist the PHB and DMG have to offer, up to and including the portable ram...), it can clutter your game, which is not a good Idea for a new DM.



When I get more levels of DM, I was planning on running self-contained economies for towns so that the players can see everyone get richer for their efforts and not farm infinite gold. Does anyone have any tips for running living towns or even dungeons like that?


yeah, winging it. Unless you got some kind of economy major, at which point you will run into problems. But believe me, if you plan for every economic detail for the whole city, the players will never find out. I would rather wing a comment about something they are right now interested in, which caters to the story of the cities economy.

Probably the most important piece of advice someone could have given me three years ago is: Do not prepare background you are not sure you can use.

[tiercel]

It's been mentioned, but the most effective ban is generally "anything you can do I can do better".

For example, if your players are going to try and trigger a sequence of infinite wishes, why wouldn't the (presumably higher level) BBEG already have done so, using some number of his wishes to set up an instantaneous (or advance) alert whenever someone else tries to start such a sequence. Boom.

That said, you probably want to figure out what major themes you want your campaign to have and what elements of the game system you will need to account for (or restrict), e.g. if you want an overland travel/exploration campaign and don't want it to be increasingly trivialized by mid-level+ magic.

Things to watch out for:
--you can't straightforwardly plan a geographically linear plotline when teleport comes online
--being lost in the wild isn't a major adventure challenge when create water and endure elements are low-level spells
--mystery plots don't require standard mystery-novel sleuthing if players have access to and are good about using divinations
--lairs aren't very well defended at mid+levels if "scry and die" isn't taken into account
--flying things trump nonflying things if there is room to fly, barring massive other differences
--polymorph and all its relatives will give you headaches, both in power level and in rules issues
--your party may have issues if PCs have a wide range of "tiers" and/or differing optimization levels
--you may have issues with encounter design if your players have a significantly higher or lower optimization level than you
--the higher level your campaign gets, the more necessities you have to track, e.g. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851 (if you find any of these necessities problematic, then there's a potential source of banning)

These are just a few issues, but the problem is once you start banning, you have to consider just how much to ban to achieve the desired effect (and not just encourage your players to work around the ban with system mastery).

For instance, if you attempt to have a "low magic" world by simply lowering the amount and availability of magic items, you are tilting power further toward primary spellcasters (and creating incentive for them to defy/break your "magic poor" setting via crafting feats, as possible).

[No brains]

One idea I had, and maybe have seen here before, is to have OP things be the crux of adventures. This could be from some BBEG who is already exploiting them to having the players go on a quest to find the one place where they can learn a forbidden power. Are there any records of this actually turning out well?

[Shining Wrath]

Ban 3.0 unless republished in 3.5. If they didn't republish there is likely a reason.

Setting that aside, Book of Vile Darkness has a lot of OP stuff (e.g., Mindrape) and encourages some players to create ... socially awkward situations.

[Big Fau]

Ban 3.0 unless republished in 3.5. If they didn't republish there is likely a reason.

Now wait a minute, there's a ton of material in the A&EG and S&F that isn't broken, it wasn't reprinted because of a reprint policy in the Core rules.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ban 3.0 unless republished in 3.5. If they didn't republish there is likely a reason. Yeah, there is a reason; fiscal responsibility to employees and investors. Reprinting all of that material with the minor changes necessary for the 3.0 - 3.5 update would've produced books that simply wouldn't sell as long as the old material was still available and easily updated. So they instead put a blurb in the core rulebooks that says 3.0 material is usable mostly as is or with only minor tweaks.



Setting that aside, Book of Vile Darkness has a lot of OP stuff (e.g., Mindrape) and encourages some players to create ... socially awkward situations.

All of the 'good' 9th level spells are OP. Mindrape is in good company alongside gate, timestop, astral projection, etc. You probably have a point about the potential for the creepy factor sneaking up to 11 though. Most of the actual mechanics of the book are pretty underwhelming though.

[jedipotter]

Ban: Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnium.

[eggynack]

Ban: Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnium.
But why? What should really be banned is serpent kingdoms. I don't think I've ever seen anything friendly come out of that book. I mean, it's a big book, and there's clearly going to be some normal power level stuff in there, but it's mostly venomfire and pun-pun.

[Fax Celestis]

Ban: Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnium.

These are three of the most balanced books published in the history of 3.5. Why on earth are you banning them‽

[Scow2]

Ehh... is there really anything worth saving from Tome of Magic? It's the Truenamer book.

[No brains]

Ban: Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnium.


But why? What should really be banned is serpent kingdoms. I don't think I've ever seen anything friendly come out of that book. I mean, it's a big book, and there's clearly going to be some normal power level stuff in there, but it's mostly venomfire and pun-pun.


These are three of the most balanced books published in the history of 3.5. Why on earth are you banning them‽

Stahp. Plz.

Unless they involve a lot of bookkeeping, which could scare away the noob players I'll be playing with (and as). Also, the players are supposed to be exceptional in the world and some incredible cosmic power is to be expected of them. Iron Heart Surge sounds fine if used to end spell effects and not nebulous philosophical quandaries. Also, the infinite damage 1d2 crusader could be fun because melee is kind of a weak way to go anyway. Also, if obtaining these special powers were part of the 'plot' as I suggested, it could be compelling, right? Am I mistaken?

[Karnith]

Ehh... is there really anything worth saving from Tome of Magic?
Binding is excellent and pretty well balanced. Shadowcasting is all right, though low-level Shadowcasting is bad and should feel bad. You can probably dump the last third of the book without losing too much.

They're three mostly unconnected systems; there's no reason to lose all of them just because one is terrible.

[Fax Celestis]

Ehh... is there really anything worth saving from Tome of Magic? It's the Truenamer book.

Binder is one of the best--if not the best--subsystem in the game. Shadowcasters are nine-level casters that aren't absurdly broken even in 10+ play, and the fix to make them viable in high-op groups is ridiculously easy. Truenamers can just be cut off and forgotten, honestly, which is a disappointment considering they are really interesting fluff-wise but are ridiculously terrible mechanics-wise.

[SciChronic]

If they're new to 3.5 limit the game to core, they won't realize how to break things, and if a player is struggling to keep up with the group, help him out. you're the DM.

If you're running a mix of experience and inexperienced players, like i am going to do. I did the following:

Removed all tier 1 and 2 classes
book list is:
Core
Complete Series
Expanded Psionics
Tome of Battle
Tome of Magic
Magic of Incarnum

Only allowed races:
Core
Campaign setting specific
Psionic races within XPH

This is only intended to be temporary though, I am going to run them group through a campaign module (since i'm not the greatest DM) and maybe a crawl or two, but afterwards i'm going to allow free retraining or new characters, and open up to all books (though i may exclude some on a case by case basis) and races. But the ban on tier 1 and 2 classes will remain, because screw those guys and all their game breaking (goodbye psion, my love. :smallfrown:)

[Coidzor]

Ban 3.0 unless republished in 3.5. If they didn't republish there is likely a reason.

Setting that aside, Book of Vile Darkness has a lot of OP stuff (e.g., Mindrape) and encourages some players to create ... socially awkward situations.

If one's players are going to try to rape NPCs using magic one's got bigger issues than BoVD, especially since they can try from 1st level with Charm Person. :smallconfused: