Is it ok?

[Kerilstrasz]

Hey there.. i need your opinion..

Is it ok as Dm to prohibit certain classes or even entire books for players reference material just because i'm unfamiliar with them or i just cant handle them yet?

For example..

I always ban any Magazine material for the plain reason i dont have magazines or any link i could find them and study them.
Also.. just because i can't handle (don't know how yet), druids are non exsistant in my settings.
And the 2 books i m not allowing are ToB and any king of Psionics, because i just can never find the free time to read em.

Every other 3,5 material is up. I sometimes allow 3E material when i can.

Am i wrong? Is what i do common? Ye i know.. at some point i should learn druids and learn Psionics and ToB.. but for the now, am i ok?

[OldTrees1]

Hey there.. i need your opinion..

Is it ok as Dm to prohibit certain classes or even entire books for players reference material just because i'm unfamiliar with them or i just cant handle them yet?

Bolded for emphasis.

Yes. As a DM you should evaluate your skill and be willing to avoid what you are not ready to handle.

It is even more reasonable since you desire to improve your skill/knowledge in order to be able to allow more options in later campaigns.

[AmberVael]

It's good to learn things, but it is also entirely reasonable to discourage or remove material you're not comfortable handling yet. This may turn away some players, but that's not you doing anything wrong, really, just a conflict of interest and capability.

Banning material you don't have access to is even more reasonable. If you can't check or look up something, it can become very difficult to plan for and deal with.

[sideswipe]

tome of battle and psionics are very commonly banned due to these reasons. so is tome of magic.

a lot of groups ban most 3rd party material as it is to expansive and some of it is just stupid.

banning certain official classes and books is fine. if they are not in your setting they are not in your setting. if you don't know it and you ban it then its perfectly reasonable.

if you start banning the complete series people will start raising eyebrows.

if you ban everything outside of the players handbook and ban druids. you will just get 2 wizards and 2 clerics in the party :smallsmile:

so no. if you have no access to the material, and you don't want to read it yet as you want a substantial knowledge of the rest first. this is very reasonable. if the party dont accept this they are just being ****s and you should find another group.

[BRC]

It's acceptable for a DM to ban just about any book for just about any reason (Up to and including "The cover art freaks me out"). It is the DM's responsibility to inform the players of this at the earliest possible opportunity, and to take this into account when making adventures.

But yes, if you are not comfortable with having a book, Feat, Class, Weapon, Spell, PRC, or ANYTHING in your game, you may ban it.

Just don't ban Rogues, Bags of Tricks, and 10-foot poles then make a billion traps.

[ScionoftheVoid]

It's okay to ban anything for just about any reason, you'll just end up with a different player pool depending on what you ban and why.

But yes, I would generally actually assume that things were only allowed if the DM had access to them (though it's polite to be ready to provide a list of what you have or don't have, obviously).
Similarly, not everyone has huge amounts of free time and even if you do it's your choice as to how to devote it. It's perfectly reasonable to not allow things if you haven't taken the time to learn how they work. It's probably better for the game, as is banning things that you don't know how to deal with.

[Chronos]

Whenever I start a new game, I always ask the DM what material is allowed. Answers such as "Core only", or "This specific list of books" are perfectly acceptable, and I rarely even ask the reasons why the book list is what it is. That said, it's not a bad idea to be flexible and to allow outside material on request on a case-by-case basis.

[Red_Death01]

As DM you have complete control over the game. If you don't want a PC to have access to something you simply can say "no" and it is so. Some players may want a reason behind it- and at worst they'll try to talk you out of your decision but, a player can't just ignore your bannings. It would be like you deciding you don't like gravity and attempting to fly... You're defying a universal law.

[Keld Denar]

Its ok to do this.

That said, psionics and ToB are two of the most awesome things ever printed for 3.5. If you DO get the chance to learn then, do so. The richness they bring to the game is unparalleled, IMO.

[Kennisiou]

I agree with the fact that your bans are totally sensible. You're doing nothing wrong by banning material you're not familiar with. It's better to make sure people aren't using things you can't effectively DM for than it is to let them use it and then wind up with some issues (as I learned the first time I let someone play an artificer in one of my campaigns...)

That said, you really should try to become familiar with ToB at the very least, and probably psionics, too. ToB is really popular, and for good reason. In spite of generally being petty poorly edited, the classes in ToB are among the most balanced in official wizards publication, and they really do make being a non-caster much more viable and fun. Psionics is also generally better balanced than magic for the most part (aside from outliers like StP erudite and psi-artificer), and worth learning for the cool stuff it lets you do, but really I feel like XPH and Complete Psi are not really as good of tools to have under your belt as a DM as ToB.

[Slipperychicken]

Is it ok as Dm to prohibit certain classes or even entire books for players reference material just because i'm unfamiliar with them or i just cant handle them yet?

It's a perfectly fine thing to do. My GM (for PF) did something similar, keeping us core-only at first, then allowing more sources as he learned more about them.

[prufock]

Yes, it's ok. My DM doesn't normally allow ToM, ToB, or XPH. It is unfortunate, because I love those, but I understand.

As a show of good faith, it's a nice gesture to read up on the stuff your players want to use "for next time."

[graeylin]

yes, absolutely.

It's even better to ban them, and then tell the people "after we establish the world a bit, and get to know each other's style, would you be willing to help me learn why you like that material so much?"

and then, once you are comfortable with running your world, you can see what's so cool about the other stuff, and see if you think it's cool too.

[Sajiri]

Its fine to ban anything you aren't comfortable with or not know about. But I would recommend at least learning druids- its from the core rules after all. If I were a player 'core only' is the bare minimum, and core only minus even one class feels like a ripoff

Unless of course nobody in the group really cares for druids anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is not only very okay but is, IMO, the single most legitimate reason to ban material.

It's a DM's prerogative to ban or alter material at will but it tends to rub the wrong way if the DM's justification for banning a given set of material is provably false.

Take Expand Psionics Handbook for example; if the DM bans it because he doesn't like it, fine. If he bans it because he doesn't understand the system, fine. If he bans it because it's overpowered and doesn't do the same for the core casters, I call foul.

It's provably false that the psion and company are more game-breakingly powerful than wizard and company so that reason immediately sets up a red flag. Either the DM doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying and the ban is otherwise motivated. Neither possibility bodes well for his DM'ing ability.

I don't expect anyone to be 100% honest with me but it annoys me to no end when someone doesn't care enough to make their lie believable.

[Scow2]

Druids are perfectly fine being banned for reasons other than unfamiliarity, due to them being a Tier 1 Caster on a Tier 3 Class with a Tier 4 class feature to boot!

[WhamBamSam]

yes, absolutely.

It's even better to ban them, and then tell the people "after we establish the world a bit, and get to know each other's style, would you be willing to help me learn why you like that material so much?"

and then, once you are comfortable with running your world, you can see what's so cool about the other stuff, and see if you think it's cool too.This is a pretty good way to go about it. People really like Psionics and ToB and are going to want access to them. They'll be more accommodating to the initial ban if they don't think it's going to be permanent.

You could probably just take a few hours and learn ToB though. It's relatively straightforward. If I were your player I'd probably offer to just give you a crash course sometime before the first session.

Psionics and Druids are somewhat complicated, but no more so than other magic. When you do get around to learning the system, don't be intimidated too much, or feel that you need to know every possible trick before you can allow psionics in your game. I'm going to assume that you don't know all the ins and outs of Wizards, Clerics, or Wu Jen, but you allow them. Eventually you'll have to say that your understanding is good enough, un-ban the material, and accept that a Psion might occasionally surprise you, just like a Wizard might.

[Chronos]

Quoth Kelb_Panthera:

Take Expand Psionics Handbook for example; if the DM bans it because he doesn't like it, fine. If he bans it because he doesn't understand the system, fine. If he bans it because it's overpowered and doesn't do the same for the core casters, I call foul.
I'd go further than that, even. My current group bans psionics, because apparently before I joined, there was another guy in the group who played a psion, and he was completely utterly broken. Now, based on what I've heard secondhand, I'm pretty sure that what happened was that they didn't notice the rule against augmenting beyond your ML, and that if they had been using that rule, that character wouldn't have been any worse than any other caster. But it's still not really my place to tell them they're wrong, even if they probably are.

If it ever comes to a point where I'm DMing for the group, I'll allow psionics, and if anyone wants to use it, we'll see how it works out... But until then, it's not worth making a fuss about. Now, granted, I don't have any particular interest in playing a psionic character at the moment... But even if I did, I always have several characters in mind that I'd like to try, and I'd just play one of the other ones instead.

[INoKnowNames]

As a player, while I might dislike that you banned these things, and I would prefer to help you be more comfortable with them and what they do, that you would be entirely honest and upfront with them and what issues you have with them is entirely refreshing. Yes, it is very okay to ban things because you lack the knowledge or familiarity to be comfortable with them in your game.

What was that phrase? While I disagree with your opinion, I respect your right to have it? I think that applies here.

Psionics is probably less broken than Magic is, and Tome of Battle looks scarier than it really is. I'd recommend you trying to find the time to give both of them a shot, but you do what you need to do, friend. The players will adjust, or they'll find another game, and you'll probably find other players to join you.

[Slipperychicken]

be entirely honest and upfront with them and what issues you have with them

I agree with this completely. It will help your players trust you a lot more if you're honest with them, and that can lead to a much more enjoyable game when players aren't constantly wondering if you're cheating them.

[Vhaidara]

You still beat out my first DM. His rule was that every player got to pick a book (Spell Compendium, Player's Handbook 2 Races, or Completes only [not Complete Psionic]). Everyone could use those books, plus Core.

As it stands, ToB is a very strong book, and I recommend you do learn it. It gives mundanes (noncasters) options that keep them relevant in mid-OP games (low OP anyone can be relevant and high OP requires either gamebreak cheese or 9th level casting)

Psionics is another very fun system that gives you a much more versatile (I mean during the day, not day-to-day) game. Also, Soulknives are awesome and terrible.

[Slipperychicken]

Psionics is another very fun system that gives you a much more versatile (I mean during the day, not day-to-day) game. Also, Soulknives are awesome and terrible.

Also, Psionics doesn't have to be a whole weird thing: They can just be another flavor of magic. In the game world, laymen would have a hard time telling a Psion from a Sorcerer anyway (aside from spell components), and the distinction would have little relevance for most purposes.

[geekintheground]

1st off, i LOVE that youre worried about this. shows you actually care about being fair (not that anyone DOESNT, but still)
2nd: i agree with just about everyone here. its totally ok to ban things you dont quite understand. just let your players know its banned before hand, let them know why, and MAYBE in your free time learn about it.

[Kerilstrasz]

Thank you all...
Yep.. i always inform ahead of time if anything is banned. And i do keep reading more books so i can provide my players more choices. Few campaigns ago i only allowed core, completes and a very very short list of other books. Then i read some more and included like a dozen more books. But these 3 things i said at OP are still eluding me.. i suppose if i had someone that knew them and had the will to explain them, i could "unban" them each faster...

I think i ll start with ToB... it is just a book, right? :smalltongue:

Again thank you all ! :smallsmile:

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Just one book, a thin one even.

[Fitz10019]

banning certain official classes and books is fine. if they are not in your setting they are not in your setting.

Just a small contradiction -- you can ban something for players and still have it in the setting. That makes the most sense, because you can build NPCs with the banned classes and thereby learn how those classes work.

For me, I ban psionics because it doesn't taste like D&D to me. I'd allow it in a scifi campaign, just not in high fantasy. That's totally taste on my part.

[Spore]

We are working fine on your PF round with allowing a certain core rule book entourage and if a player REALLY needs a feat, skill, spell or ACF from another book, they have to bring it into the forum and let the whole group evaluate the plea. More often than not it gets accepted (besides shenanigans like Tippyverse food traps, obscure magazine articles), but disregarding the community choice, the DM is and will always be the last arbiter.

We have Boon Companion allowed in all campaigns, but eastern classes (samurai, ninja, partly monks) are banned in one because of flavor.

[Raezeman]

in that regard i got lucky. i started DMing a little while ago (5 sessions) so far, and while i had about 2 years experience as a player, the people i DM for are other friends that are completely new to the game, need to learn all the rules and with no idea of the potential of any race/class/feat/spell/... So i started them out with core, aka, player's manual. So where i only have a good understanding about that i played myself and a OK understanding about what fellow players have played, i also have a rough understanding about the rest of players manual. So when 3 of my players wanted to be a druid, rogue and paladin, classes i never had any experience with, i said it was ok, as long as they don't mind that i don't have answers to questions and advice as easily ready as for the fighter and sorcerer.

I also allow all books to be used for feats and spell selection and so on, but just ask them to tell me what they pick, so i can say "this is actually kind of broken and overpowered, so i prefer if you didn't". But as only the fighter guy actually does this, this has not really come up yet.

[Killer Angel]

To ban things for those reasons, before playing, it's perfectly reasonable.

I like / accept, when a DM bans some sources before the beginning.
BUT when the DM approves a book, then I present to him a build with specific things from that book, he says he's OK with it, then when we play he comes out with something ala "That's really too powerful! I'm sorry but you can't use it that way", then I become a little upset...

[lytokk]

I think its perfectly acceptable to ban anything based on lack of knowledge, or for any reason, so long as the players know beforehand, which you have let them know. I used to have psionics banned from my games after a few really bad experiences with players using psionics. It seemed too complicated a system and I didn't feel like spending the time looking at it. No one seemed to mind at first.

Then one of my better players came forward really wanting to play a psychic warrior. At first I told him no, then I noticed in the first session of the game he really wasn't having a good time with the character he built. I took it up with the rest of the group, and they agreed to let him reroll as a psychic warrior, on a probational basis. Psychic warrior has been a good break in for psionics due to their very limited power choice, and him letting me know exactly what he wanted to do with the character, which while ridiculous, not overpowered.

Basically, if you have someone who knows the material that you can trust, letting them play a character from the book and on a probational basis is a good way to learn the system, rather than having to read all of the books and memorize them.

[Invader]

I'll reiterate what most other people have said and say you're absolutely in the right to ban certain things for the reasons you stated. I've been playing 3.X since it came out and I still disallow things be a use I'm not familiar with the mechanics.

[Kudaku]

A unified playground! That's unusual.

In general I don't think banning books because you don't have access or are unfamiliar with them is out of line, and in many cases will actually improve your games. That said, I'd also try to keep an open mind.

Sometimes a character concept heavily relies on using an archetype or a set of feats that are only available in a specific book - I'd say banning books is fair game, but I'd also allow players to bring me specific (and limited) material from the banned books if they really want/need it in order to realize their character.

IE if Ultimate Magic is banned don't ask me about Words of Power, but I might allow the Burning Spell feat for your acid-specialized evoker wizard.

[Airk]

A unified playground! That's unusual.

It's okay, I'm here to argue with you now. ;P


Sometimes a character concept heavily relies on using an archetype or a set of feats that are only available in a specific book - I'd say banning books is fair game, but I'd also allow players to bring me specific (and limited) material from the banned books if they really want/need it in order to realize their character.

I kinda disagree - they should pick another character concept. There's nothing in the rules that says they are entitled to make a blahblahwizardwithfeatfeatawesome. If you're unfamiliar with the material, letting someone cherry pick just the bits they want is probably the quickest way to get in over your head.

I tend to disagree with the idea that you need any given book to realize any given character concept anyway, but that depends on your definition of 'character'.

[BWR]

Just have to agree with the majority here: it's perfectly ok.
The only real reason you would be in the wrong for banning something is doing it maliciously.
If you don't like it, fine. If you don't understand it, fine. If it doesn't fit with the flavor of the game you want, very fine. If you thought something would be ok but turns out to be a seriously detrimental influence on your game for whatever reason, fine (though you might want to apologize for banning something you had already ok'd).

If you ban things in order to be a jerk, not fine.

[Person_Man]

It happens all the time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Having said that, I allow pretty much anything in my games, including homebrew. The only real balance issue at stake is whether or not players are within the same ballpark of optimization and being able to fill different niches (so that each has a chance to shine in the game) compared to each other, not some ideal "this is the highest threshold of damage anyone can deal" or any similar "this is broken" argument.

[Kudaku]

I kinda disagree - they should pick another character concept. There's nothing in the rules that says they are entitled to make a blahblahwizardwithfeatfeatawesome. If you're unfamiliar with the material, letting someone cherry pick just the bits they want is probably the quickest way to get in over your head.

I tend to disagree with the idea that you need any given book to realize any given character concept anyway, but that depends on your definition of 'character'.

I don't believe I used the words "cherry pick" or "entitled" anywhere in my post, nor do I believe I implied them anywhere. I used Burning Spell as an example specifically because it's a feat that is mechanically underwhelming but chock full of flavor for an acid-specialist spellcaster. If the player does try to bring in OP and/or broken stuff, just say no.

What I did say was that even though you ban books because you are unfamiliar with them (which is perfectly OK) you could also consider allowing limited material from banned books as long as the player provides the relevant material and you get a chance to look it over before the game session begins.

As an example: The GM bans Ultimate Combat because he doesn't have access to and hasn't read the book. A player has a monk character concept that has a fighting style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGztjzEuysM) based on Nightcrawler from the Xmen universe. Ultimate Combat has a series of feats called Dimensional Agility, Dimensional Assault, and Dimensional Dervish which emulates what Nightcrawler does quite well. The feats are not overpowered, nor are they really particularly good. However they're the perfect fit for his character concept. The player in question could then provide photocopies or (since this is Pathfinder) provide links to the feats online and the GM could peruse them at his convenience and give them a thumbs up or thumbs down.

[Coidzor]

I always ban any Magazine material for the plain reason i dont have magazines or any link i could find them and study them.

Also.. just because i can't handle (don't know how yet), druids are non exsistant in my settings.

And the 2 books i m not allowing are ToB and any king of Psionics, because i just can never find the free time to read em.

Well, obviously if the player can't even provide the relevant text for you to read then they can't use it themselves since they can't read it either. :smalltongue:

If you're banning druids, I hope you're also banning wizards and clerics too, then. :smallwink: However, there's also a number of Druid variants that greatly tone them down, such as the Shapeshift variant from PHB II, the Druidic Avenger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druidVariantDruidicAve nger)(loses Animal Companion, spontaneous summoning), the Aspect of Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature) variant of Wildshape, the Swift and Deadly Hunter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#druid) (loses wildshape, armor and shield proficiency/use), or a legal combination of these.

You really should make the time, especially if you're banning druids because you don't know how to deal with them. ToB is a great resource (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2030.0) and Psionics are a bit more balanced (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/946751) than spellcasting as I recall, though there's still broken tricks in there, so at the end of the day you really just need your players to agree not to try to break the game.


As an example: The GM bans Ultimate Combat because he doesn't have access to and hasn't read the book. A player has a monk character concept that has a fighting style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGztjzEuysM) based on Nightcrawler from the Xmen universe. Ultimate Combat has a series of feats called Dimensional Agility, Dimensional Assault, and Dimensional Dervish which emulates what Nightcrawler does quite well. The feats are not overpowered, nor are they really particularly good. However they're the perfect fit for his character concept. The player in question could then provide photocopies or (since this is Pathfinder) provide links to the feats online and the GM could peruse them at his convenience and give them a thumbs up or thumbs down.

He has access to the website, he has access to the content of the feats even if he doesn't have access to the full text of the book, so the argument from lack of access doesn't stand up in the first place.

Granted, in this day and age, arguments from lack of access are much weaker than they would have been even ten years ago.


Take Expand Psionics Handbook for example; if the DM bans it because he doesn't like it, fine. If he bans it because he doesn't understand the system, fine. If he bans it because it's overpowered and doesn't do the same for the core casters, I call foul.

Even though banning it because one believes it is overpowered demonstrates one's lack of understanding? :smallamused:

[Keld Denar]

If you have any questions regarding those sources one you start looking into them, don't be afraid to all here. Some things might look crazy on paper (monks - ye gods look at all those class features) but when you have the experienced eyes of the Playground break it down into tiny crunchy pieces, you realize that they are perfectly normal things that just use funny words.

[Kudaku]

He has access to the website, he has access to the content of the feats even if he doesn't have access to the full text of the book, so the argument from lack of access doesn't stand up in the first place

Note that OP is playing 3.5, not Pathfinder. He only has access to the D20SRD which has nowhere near the same book coverage as PFSRD or the PRD. I used a PF example since Dimensional Dervish was the first thing that came to mind - it's probably a better fit if you can replace Dimensional X with a series of similarly unique feats offered in ToB, but I haven't read the Tome of Battle in a while.

Barring illegal options that I believe it is against the forum rules to refer to, it's actually really hard to get a hold of 3.5 books these days, at least where I live. Most of them have been out of print for a fair few years now.


Even though banning it because one believes it is overpowered demonstrates one's lack of understanding? :smallamused:

I'd argue there's definitely a difference between going "wow, this is really complicated, I don't think I understand this system well enough to GM it properly yet" and "wow, this is totally OP and should be banned forevers".

[qwertyu63]

Hey there.. i need your opinion..

Is it ok as Dm to prohibit certain classes or even entire books for players reference material just because i'm unfamiliar with them or i just cant handle them yet?

No. If a player wants to use something, they clearly have it. So, borrow it and learn.

[Coidzor]

Note that OP is playing 3.5, not Pathfinder. He only has access to the D20SRD which has nowhere near the same book coverage as PFSRD or the PRD.

I used a PF example since Dimensional Dervish was the first thing that came to mind - it's probably a better fit if you can replace Dimensional X with a series of similarly unique feats offered in ToB, but I haven't read the Tome of Battle in a while.

You're the one who decided to bring up Pathfinder. :smalltongue: The hypothetical DM has a working internet connection, so he has access to the PFSRD and the PRD barring some very unusual circumstances. Saying he lacks access when he clearly has it is silly, besides, there's a lot more content WOTC released for free than just the content on the d20SRD, so even there, lack of access fails for many things.

Superior Unarmed Strike is a good example of a feat from ToB that has nothing to do with maneuvers and is just useful for anyone who wants to fight unarmed, regardless of character class.


I'd argue there's definitely a difference between going "wow, this is really complicated, I don't think I understand this system well enough to GM it properly yet" and "wow, this is totally OP and should be banned forevers".

The juxtaposition still bears pointing out, if for no other reason than that ignorance of psionics is commonly found with embracing the myths about it.

[Icewraith]

Short term, especially if you don't have access to the material, ban away.

However, if you've run a number of games, and keep on banning the same things, and someone really wants to play one of those things (and it's not an Incantatrix or other thing well known for breaking games wide open), it does kind of suck to not eventually get around to learning the material they want to incorporate. Generally speaking, the broader the range of books you allow, the odder continuously banning certain remaining books (instead of objectionable parts of those books) becomes.

This is especially true for things like Greater Manyshot that really improve certain builds (like Scouts) but were printed in a banned (in this instance psionic) book even though they have nothing to do with most of the material in the book. Especially consider excepting players who only want to use one key feat or ability from a certain book, can provide you the relevant text, and tell you exactly what they plan to do with it and why they think it's reasonable (as long as you agree it's reasonable). Especially consider this for people playing lower-tier classes, many times they need all the help they can get just to stay competent.

With that said, let me echo others in here who strongly recommend learning ToB. Just don't look too closely at the art, especially the faces.

[Kudaku]

You're the one who decided to bring up Pathfinder. :smalltongue: The hypothetical DM has a working internet connection, so he has access to the PFSRD and the PRD barring some very unusual circumstances. Saying he lacks access when he clearly has it is silly

:smallsigh:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Even though banning it because one believes it is overpowered demonstrates one's lack of understanding? :smallamused:

As kudaku pointed out, there's a difference between banning something because you don't understand it and acknowledging such.

DM: I'm not allowing psionics because I don't know the material and I'm not in a learning mood right now. Fine, no problem.

DM: I'm not allowing psionics because it's overpowered. Flag on the play.

The latter shows a lack of understanding while the former states it. There's a big difference between the two and only the latter speaks to the potential for other, sometimes greater issues.

[Tyndmyr]

Hey there.. i need your opinion..

Is it ok as Dm to prohibit certain classes or even entire books for players reference material just because i'm unfamiliar with them or i just cant handle them yet?

For example..

I always ban any Magazine material for the plain reason i dont have magazines or any link i could find them and study them.
Also.. just because i can't handle (don't know how yet), druids are non exsistant in my settings.
And the 2 books i m not allowing are ToB and any king of Psionics, because i just can never find the free time to read em.

Every other 3,5 material is up. I sometimes allow 3E material when i can.

Am i wrong? Is what i do common? Ye i know.. at some point i should learn druids and learn Psionics and ToB.. but for the now, am i ok?

Yes, that's fine. Run what you know, work to know more. One does not start out knowing everything about DMing...it's a learning process, and knowing and accepting your limits is a healthy thing. Then, you work to expand them.

I tend to be very accepting of unusual builds, etc, but sometimes, even the most generous DM has legitimate reasons for limits.

[INoKnowNames]

As kudaku pointed out, there's a difference between banning something because you don't understand it and acknowledging such.

DM: I'm not allowing psionics because I don't know the material and I'm not in a learning mood right now. Fine, no problem.

DM: I'm not allowing psionics because it's overpowered. Flag on the play.

The latter shows a lack of understanding while the former states it. There's a big difference between the two and only the latter speaks to the potential for other, sometimes greater issues.

I like to think of Gamers as Proud-Warrior-Race-Guys. And there is a sense of honor in admitting you don't know what something is and that it makes you feel uncomfortable. Saying it's broken just as an excuse for your own inexperience, on the other hand, is more than rude, and entirely unacceptable. (The line between that, and claiming that something is broken because it is broken is a little blurry, but that's another issue).

You tell me we can't have a Pepperoni Pizza because you say Pepperoni sucks, I'll find somewhere else to eat my Pizza. You tell me you don't like he taste of Pepperoni and would prefer not to have that in the Pizza, I'm willing to have Cheese instead, though I'd recommend getting used to the taste; it might grow on you.


No. If a player wants to use something, they clearly have it. So, borrow it and learn.

Hey, Qwerty. How those Necrotic Cysts working for you? :smalltongue:

[The Insanity]

I prefer to use that opportunity to learn the mechanics.