What sourcebooks should I ban?

[atemu1234]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?

[ryu]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?

Depends. What sort of power level has the group been playing at? Also do be aware that it's entirely possible to hit any of the six main competence levels in core alone.

[Seerow]

If you're looking for bans for balance purposes, start with banning core, work your way out from there. Really, it's just not going to work.



If you're going to ban stuff, the best reason is "Nobody actually owns that book". But general rule of thumb, anything you want to do with a splat book that's "broken" can frequently be matched or beaten by something existing in core. Taking away splats just removes the diversity of viable options that makes the game great.

[atemu1234]

And some faith in the internet was restored that day. I'm just asking if there are any out there that simply shouldn't be allowed. I guess not.

[Seerow]

And some faith in the internet was restored that day. I'm just asking if there are any out there that simply shouldn't be allowed. I guess not.

Yeah I can't think of any one source that has nothing but broken material in it. Almost all books have some powerful stuff, some broken stuff, some weak stuff, and a mix of things in between. I can list a dozen different prestige classes or spells or feats that I might ban, but no single book that stands out as "Yeah, that book is gonna cause problems".

[Turion]

Yeah I can't think of any one source that has nothing but broken material in it. Almost all books have some powerful stuff, some broken stuff, some weak stuff, and a mix of things in between. I can list a dozen different prestige classes or spells or feats that I might ban, but no single book that stands out as "Yeah, that book is gonna cause problems".

Serpent Kingdoms, maybe? I can't think of anything in that book worth using aside from the Sarrukh and the Manyfang Dagger, and I wouldn't allow either of those at my table.

By and large, though, I agree.

[Vhaidara]

I've heard solid things from people who ban everything in Core that isn't from the Skills or the Equipment sections (allowing feats that are prerequisites only).

But yeah, Core is the most imbalanced part of DnD. Actually, if you treat Expanded Psionics Handbook as extended Core, then banning Core removes T1 and T2.

[ryu]

Yeah the Sarrukh is one of the most powerful cards in all duel monsters.

Also you can still totally hit tiers one and two with purely outside core resources. You just don't get any tier one or two starting classes.

[lunar2]

pretty much anything first party should be fine, but you'll want to watch out for individual character options. it may be in your best interest to exclude 3.0 material that doesn't have a 3.5 conversion, since that's more work on you if you allow that stuff. similarly, mixing campaign setting material can create problems, just from the sheer variety of combinations that open up, so i would suggest pulling from no more than two campaign settings, and preferably only one.

other than that, magic of incarnum, tome of battle, expanded psionics handbook, and tome of magic all introduce new magic systems. with the exception of the last 3rd of tome of magic, they all tend to be more balanced than the standard vancian casting system, but if you aren't familiar with them, you may want to limit options from those books until you get used to them. maybe introduce them for a one shot campaign, first, so you can see how they work in practice before introducing them to a more serious campaign.

@ banning core removing tier 1 and 2. wu jen, artificer, spirit shaman, binder with online vestiges, archivist would all like to have a word with you.

[Vhaidara]

Is wu-jen even on the list? I always forget that it's Asian wizard.

Spirit shaman I've heard debated, but I for one like them.

Completely forgot Archivist. But also, loss of Core spells does hurt T1 a lot.

Artificer is bizarre.

I always forget online additions.

[Mnemnosyne]

None. It's nonsensical to ban things based on what book they happen to be printed in, although for some reason it's very popular. If things need to be banned, they should be based on what they are and whether they deserve it. If a player wants to use something, it's only fair to read that class/feat/spell/item/whatever and decide based on its own merits.

[eggynack]

Serpent Kingdoms, maybe? I can't think of anything in that book worth using aside from the Sarrukh and the Manyfang Dagger, and I wouldn't allow either of those at my table.

Well, there is something else, but that thing is venomfire. That book is just wonky as hell.

[Thrudd]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?

You may want to consider limiting material based on what actually makes sense for your setting. Cramming everything ever published for 3.5 into a single game world is the main issue I see. Stick with only that material which fits in your setting in a coherent way. If you don't know all of the material that is out there, let the players suggest things or present you with character builds. Don't be afraid to turn them down if they aren't appropriate for your setting, or suggest something similar which fits better. If they want to use something from a book you don't own, I'd ask them to borrow it so you can look over it and decide if it fits in your game.

[Zanos]

You may want to consider limiting material based on what actually makes sense for your setting. Cramming everything ever published for 3.5 into a single game world is the main issue I see. Stick with only that material which fits in your setting in a coherent way. If you don't know all of the material that is out there, let the players suggest things or present you with character builds. Don't be afraid to turn them down if they aren't appropriate for your setting, or suggest something similar which fits better. If they want to use something from a book you don't own, I'd ask them to borrow it so you can look over it and decide if it fits in your game.
Yeah, this is a good point. Generally things get banned for fluff reasons, not mechanics. I run a lot of caimpaigns where psionics or binding or incarnum don't really fit with the setting, so I'll either ask players to fluff their classes as something else or ban the relevant books.

As far as balance goes, I'll just echo what others have said. Dragon Magazine gets banned a lot though, but that's more due to difficulty of access rather than Dragon Magazine being unbalanced(it is, but no more than any other book).

[Namfuak]

So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level...

This is very ambiguous. Some groups like to play with all mundane characters, some groups like to have every character rival the gods in power. As others have mentioned, generally it makes more sense to ban classes which are very powerful, such as wizards and clerics, and limit use of classes which are generally underpowered, like fighters (I say limit use since a few fighter levels can help some builds), as well as classes which just do not fit your fluff. However, you really should only do this if you think that the group's members will not be receptive to retraining or changing character classes if they are at a different power level than the rest of your group - otherwise, it's a simple matter for a wizard to stop using a particularly powerful spell or a fighter to retrain some levels and/or swap around some feats.

[Soarel]

I agree with those who suggest that Dragon Magazine should be banned. Most of the stuff in there is both hard to find and often imbalanced.

Another sourcebook I recommend banning is the {Scrubbed} (Book of Nine Swords for the uninitiated). The stuff in there is just ridiculously confusing.

Also, I recommend banning any supplement involving rules for sex. Those get awkward fast and can lead to immature players.

[deuxhero]

Another sourcebook I recommend banning is the {Scrubbed} (Book of Nine Swords for the uninitiated). The stuff in there is just ridiculously confusing.



I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.

Tome of Battle is actually one of the better balanced books (everything in it is roughly the same power level, it's very hard to make a useless warblade or crusader and not easy for a swordsage), and it's biggest holes would have been undoubtedly been fixed if's errata wasn't swapped with the complete mage errata.

[Seerow]

I agree with those who suggest that Dragon Magazine should be banned. Most of the stuff in there is both hard to find and often imbalanced.

I'm 50/50 on banning Dragon material. On one hand, there is some unbalanced stuff. On the other hand, I can't think of anything nearly as egregious as stuff printed in official books. And it does provide some really nice options for weaker classes, like the Targeteer and Exoticist Fighter variants and the Mystic Ranger variant and Moon Guarded Ranger sub levels. Oh and Wildshape Monk. Probably plenty of others I'm forgetting. I see no reason for any of those things to be banned except for lack of availability.


Another sourcebook I recommend banning is the {Scrubbed} (Book of Nine Swords for the uninitiated). The stuff in there is just ridiculously confusing.

I am deathly afraid someone is going to respond to this seriously and derail the thread. I'm just going to say you're wrong and leave it at that.


Also, I recommend banning any supplement involving rules for sex. Those get awkward fast and can lead to immature players.

Luckily there is no such official supplement. If you start digging into 3rd party you can find just about anything.

[deuxhero]

I don't think anyone really allows Savage Species (which I think is actually 3.0 anyways).

Complete Psionics is a book you should ban because it just all around terrible (It spends a page or so dedicated to "____ mind blade" feats that allow you to shift your mindblade into a different weapon when even core had the common sense to make a single feat that you picked a weapon for) and breaks other books by trying to retcon their rules to something less balanced.

[erikun]

Ban something if it makes the group uncomfortable. This is a game, and unless the players are interested in exploring a certain awkward situation, you probably don't want to make it a point to bringing it up in a game.

I'd recommend banning material that nobody at the table is familiar with, as a principle. Some of my worst experiences have been when a DM or a player brought in some material that they didn't really understand, and tried applying it at the table. Context is important! This applies a bit to DM monsters and encounters as well, as you could easily tear apart a party that wasn't ready for whatever the particular monster's vulnerability is.

I would recommend limiting access to material that you are not familiar with. You're the DM (presumably) and so you need to be the one making ultimate decisions on how material works - a rather difficult task if you aren't familiar with how it works in the first place! Some stuff seems overpowered but is balanced by their mechanics (Psionics) while other stuff seems balanced but turns out to be some of the most overpowered stuff in the game (Artificer). If someone wants to play a character using those rules, take the time to work with them and be sure you understand how the new mechanics work.

[Twilightwyrm]

If you need a more or less standard baseline for what to expect, I would recommend as follows: all 3.5 general settings books should be fine at the onset, with material from 3.0, Dragon Magazine, and Campaign Setting specific books to be allowed or disallowed on a cast by case basis and subject to strict DM purview. Then, once your players have decided their base classes, and you have decided what your story will generally entail, let other subsystems become "vestigial" so to speak. This is to say, they are not explicitly banned, but if none of your players are using, for example, Shadow Magic, and your game will not necessarily involve it, then the players can expect that for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. Binding Magic, Truenaming, Incarnum, and (despite my personal affection for it) Martial Adepts are also all good candidates for becoming "Vestigial". Even Psionics can technically do likewise, but this is a bit harder due to the considerable level of integration and support. Then, if down the road a player shows interest on one of these subsystems, they should let you know ahead of time, and you can slowly reintegrate it back into the Campaign setting. This way your PCs know what to expect, without exploding the amount of work you would need to do to fit every last one of these subsystems, and the factions and fluff that go along with them, into the Campaign world.

[Frostthehero]

I always look at frostburn as one of the more lethally overpowered books. Since my DM allowed us to use it, my wizard has become completely dominant, even over our druid, and cleric. He could actually probably kill them both 1v2. Shivering touch and ice assassin come to mind, but I seem to remember others.

[Phelix-Mu]

The main, and totally justifiable reason to ban books/sources is to manage the amount of material that the DM and players have to sift through. While more advanced players generally like more stuff, those starting out may suffer from material profusion that makes making choices difficult (like trying to make a sorcerer with the full list of 3e sor/wiz spells published...that can be difficult for some of us).

And, as for the DM, the DM really should have at least a baseline grasp on most of any source that a player is going to have access to. And since the DM's list of responsibilities is already huge, a DM is well-within bounds to limit available material based on what the DM feels is manageable. The only thing worse than banning material at the beginning is not recognizing that you should have banned something at the beginning once play has begun (usually because you don't understand the system well enough to rule on it...something that can cause lots of problems for less-apt DMs).

Anyone that bans something for these reasons has my sympathy and understanding. But what everyone else has said about balance is pretty much also true. It may be sensible to limit spell lists to reduce Tier 1 marginalizing everyone, but that's still possible, or you might say that wizards can only polymorph into stuff from MM1 or something, just to keep the paperwork to a minimum. But other than that kind of practical limitation, there really isn't any virtue to saying "nothing in book x or y is allowed." As always, efforts to accommodate the desires of the players early on usually pays dividends in the long run, as long as such dispensation is done wisely and in measure.

[Metahuman1]

Another sourcebook I recommend banning is the {Scrubbed} (Book of Nine Swords for the uninitiated). The stuff in there is just ridiculously confusing.



Was this a joke? I really hope this was a joke.

[Vhaidara]

Well, compared to fighter, barbarian, or paladin, ToB is extremely confusing. Balanced, yes, but also confusing. Some of my favorites
1. Crusader maneuver availability. It's like a mini-game.
2. Iron Heart Surge. Enough said.
3. The fact that it's called "Blade Magic" and isn't magic
4. Ex teleportation via Shadow Hand
5. The best (worst) errata ever.

[sleepyphoenixx]

ToB is no more confusing than the grapple rules. Probably less. :smalltongue:
The only reason to ban it would be if you're not familiar with it and can't spare the time to read up on it.

The same applies to Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic. New subsystems should only be brought into the game if the DM knows how they work without having to crack open the book for every combat encounter. Balance-wise they're not a problem though unless your players go out of their way to unoptimize.

If you're looking to expand your material ToB, MoI and ToM should be the first books to add imo, in that order. More options for non-casters are always nice, and these are pretty well balanced.
They add a lot more to the game than another book of spells and feats for casters with a few exotic weapons and crap feats for melee tacked on.

[Jeff the Green]

I don't think anyone really allows Savage Species (which I think is actually 3.0 anyways).

Complete Psionics is a book you should ban because it just all around terrible (It spends a page or so dedicated to "____ mind blade" feats that allow you to shift your mindblade into a different weapon when even core had the common sense to make a single feat that you picked a weapon for) and breaks other books by trying to retcon their rules to something less balanced.

I allow SS with a skeptical eye. The type pyramid is right out, and I generally prefer homebrewed monster classes to the ones in there. Oh, and tauric and symbiotic templates are just messed up. The other templates and most of the anthropomorphic animals are okay for PCs, and it a player really wants to play a MM succubus, they'll probably need SS.

CP is in the same boat. In general, I skip the rule rewrites (which because of primary source I believe aren't even RAW anyway). Erudite needs some finessing (no, at 20th you do not get 99 unique powers per day) and Divine Mind should die in a fire, but other than that it's not bad.

[BWR]

I can't really think of any single source that is worth banning outright based entirely on power levels. As mentioned so many times already, you might as well start with core and go from there.

The best reasons I can think of to ban entire books is:
a) you don't like it. Ignoring power and balance, you just plain hate the flavor and/or mechanics
b) too much stuff. Maybe you don't want to have to worry too much about endless splats and classes and prestige classes and spells and feats and skill uses and new mechanics for everything. Just cut it down to a manageble size.

If you don't have access to a particular source, you are perfectly justified in banning the whole thing. You can also just ban things on a case by case basis. Rather than banning stuff from the get-go, just tell everyone you can't be bothered to check everything beforehand and say you will look over anything they make before play and make case by case judgements then.

Regarding Dragon magazine. Some of the stuff is a bit weird. So is some of the stuff in splats (some of which started in Dragon). It's not going to unbalance your game worse than any other source. I really don't know where this widespread prejudice comes from.

[Anlashok]

Banning books for balance doesn't work, because every book tends to have a variety of balance in it from crappy to well designed to silly powerful. Plus Core wins the game anyways, there's only a few noncore things that can even rival core in power.

If you're gonna ban a book, it should probably be because of access issues. DM is often banned simply because it's a pain in the ass to hunt down every random issue that might have something useful in it and then it's even harder to tell what got added to actual splats later and changed and.. yeah it can be a mess.

Tome of Battle is actually one of the better balanced books (everything in it is roughly the same power level

Except of course the T0 Arcane Swordsage.


ToB is extremely confusing.
You have to try really really hard to make ToB confusing. It's pretty straight forward and... really it's just a modified version of the standard magic system anyways.

Anyways if you're honestly looking for a good basic set to start with, SRD + the tomes and the completes are a good start. Throw in MoI when you feel a bit more comfortable with that baseline.

Or just allow everything because 3.5 is a crazy confused mess and that's what makes it awesome.

[deuxhero]

Arcane Swordsage is an (awful) idea, not an actual class.


ToB is no more confusing than the grapple rules. Probably less. :smalltongue:
The only reason to ban it would be if you're not familiar with it and can't spare the time to read up on it.

The same applies to Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic. New subsystems should only be brought into the game if the DM knows how they work without having to crack open the book for every combat encounter. Balance-wise they're not a problem though unless your players go out of their way to unoptimize.

If you're looking to expand your material ToB, MoI and ToM should be the first books to add imo, in that order. More options for non-casters are always nice, and these are pretty well balanced.
They add a lot more to the game than another book of spells and feats for casters with a few exotic weapons and crap feats for melee tacked on.

Pact magic/binders are balanced, but shadow magic need houserules and truenamer needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

[eggynack]

Regarding Dragon magazine. Some of the stuff is a bit weird. So is some of the stuff in splats (some of which started in Dragon). It's not going to unbalance your game worse than any other source. I really don't know where this widespread prejudice comes from.
As has oft been mentioned, prejudice against dragon magazine comes largely from a combination of lack of accessibility, combined with a lack of knowledge, with perhaps a dollop of non-officialness. The materials are generally more difficult to access than first party books, and even if they were more accessible, a person is more likely to have a given official book than a particular dragon magazine. The fact that sourcing dragon stuff is more difficult doesn't help. I can usually identify the source for a chunk of first party material nearly immediately, and if my first guess is wrong, I can probably find the correct source rather quickly. By contrast, for dragon stuff, if you name some mechanical object from a magazine, I will have no frame of reference to identify source at all, and I'll likely start trolling around on message boards to find someone who cited the source once. Serious hassle.

The second factor, lack of knowledge, is partially rooted in the first. We talk about first party materials. We talk about them a lot. Even if the stuff in first party might be less balanced than dragon materials, I will usually know it's less balanced. I can usually say, "Oh, that spell? It's pretty ridiculous," based largely on accumulated forum knowledge. For dragon materials, however, unless a given chunk of mechanics is mentioned a lot, which is an honor accorded to only a few things from them, I'll again just have no frame of reference. It's a lot like looking at homebrew, in that I'd have to make big value judgments every time I want to know how strong something is, except with homebrew, you often have a whole bunch of folks commenting on everything. These are problems that are going away more and more over time, but they're still very much there.

[Sith_Happens]

No book is ban-worthy in its entirety from a gameplay perspective, but I'd require anything from a 3.0, Eberron, or Forgotten Realms book to go through DM approval before being used. Mainly because many things from those books require modification to function properly in a general 3.5 setting, though Realms material does have a somewhat higher than average cheese concentration (Serpent Kingdoms, just... Serpent Kingdoms).

[TuggyNE]

No book is ban-worthy in its entirety from a gameplay perspective, but I'd require anything from a 3.0, Eberron, or Forgotten Realms book to go through DM approval before being used. Mainly because many things from those books require modification to function properly in a general 3.5 setting, though Realms material does have a somewhat higher than average cheese concentration (Serpent Kingdoms, just... Serpent Kingdoms).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the only book with more ridiculously imbalanced cheese than Serpent Kingdoms is the PHB. Maaaayyyybe the DMG, but I'm not sure about that.

[Sam K]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?

Decide what's a "reasonable power level" for your campaign and then disallow things (or combinations of things) that you think will be too powerful in relation to that. Some of the more outrageous stuff from dragon magazine (like the half minotaur template) might be ok on a barbarian in a party with a wizard, a cleric and a druid. It would be overpowered on a barbarian in a party with a monk, a rogue and a ranger.

If you or your players dont have that great system mastery, it might be a good idea to start off with only allowing a few books (like the complete series), not because this makes for a more balanced game (PHB is still the most broken book out there), but because it means having to read up on fewer things. All depends on the game, though.

[Sian]

ban books you don't have access to or don't understand (the later being the main reason why i ban Incarnum at my table)

[The Insanity]

Ban players, not books.

[Graypairofsocks]

Pact magic/binders are balanced, but shadow magic need houserules and truenamer needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

Speaking of Shadowcasters: one of the main developers(can't remember his name) made an unoffical patch for it.

[deuxhero]

Unofficial being the key word. I'd use it, but it's still a house rule.

[Thealtruistorc]

Serpent Kingdoms, maybe? I can't think of anything in that book worth using aside from the Sarrukh and the Manyfang Dagger, and I wouldn't allow either of those at my table.

By and large, though, I agree.

Also, serpentflesh golems. Personally, I would advise banning the book on account of players getting terrifyingly creative trying to get manipulate form.

[Terazul]

Well, compared to fighter, barbarian, or paladin, ToB is extremely confusing. Balanced, yes, but also confusing. Some of my favorites
It really, really isn't.


Crusader maneuver availability. It's like a mini-game.
I never understand people who say this. Print out Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) (or make your own, either way you should probably have a readily accessible way to know your spells/abilities anyway), make a lil deck out of your readied maneuvers and shuffle it... That's pretty much it.
Combat starts? Draw a few. On your turn? Draw one. Can't draw anymore? Shuffle and do it again. It is incredibly simple.


2. Iron Heart Surge. Enough said.
Easily house-ruled to work on things you want it to and doesn't warrant banning an entire book.



3. The fact that it's called "Blade Magic" and isn't magic
Pedantry.



4. Ex teleportation via Shadow Hand
Not... confusing? Ex abilities by definition are allowed to break the laws of physics. I think this remains a typical kneejerk "he did something traditionally magical with no magic!" reaction to martial characters getting maneuverability options. Also: more pedantry! If it bothers you so much throw (Su) on it and call it a day.



5. The best (worst) errata ever.
Yeah, they didn't finish it. Book still works.

Seriously, of those, only the first is one that is even mildly confusing. It's not that bad.

As for the actual topic, don't ban books, ban specific combinations of things that actively cause trouble at the table. Part of this comes from knowing your players and the types of things they get into. I've seen DMs go through so much trouble making an intricate ban-list only to have their players roll up a bunch of vanilla characters. What's your expected power level (or one you feel you can handle)?

[Eldest]

4. Ex teleportation via Shadow Hand

It's (su) actually, IIRC.

Adding to the chorus of "ban core". Maybe keep the bards? I like bards.

[The Insanity]

It's (su) actually, IIRC.
It's not. It's Ex. And that's good.

[Eldest]

It's not. It's Ex. And that's good.

Huh, you are correct apparently. My bad.

[Gavinfoxx]

You don't want to ban BOOKS. You want to ban CLASSES.

Here are some classes you should consider banning:

Overpowered:

Wizard (PHB)
Cleric (PHB)
Druid (PHB)
Sorcerer (PHB)
Archivist (HoH)
Artificer (EbCS)
Psion (XPH)
Binder (ToM, with online vestiges)
Death Master (DC)
Favored Soul (CD)
Mystic (DCS)
Sha'ir (DC)
Shaman (OA)
Spirit Shaman (CD)
Wu Jen (CArc)

Underpowered:

Monk (PHB)
Paladin (PHB)
Fighter (PHB)
Commoner (DMG)
Aristocrat (DMG)
Warrior (DMG)
Expert (DMG)
Divine Mind (CPsi)
Truenamer (TM)
Battledancer (DC)
Eidolon (Gh)
Haeler (MH)
Knight (PHB2)
Lurk (CPsi)
Magewright (EbCS)
Mariner (LotT)
Ninja (CAdv)
Noble (DCS)
Samurai (CW)
Soulbourn (MoI)
Soulknife (XPH)
Swashbuckler (CW)

That leaves, as roughly appropriately balanced, which you should allow as the base classes of your game if you seek balance:

Barbarian (PHB)
Bard (PHB)
Rogue (PHB)
Ranger (PHB)
Adept (DMG)
Dragonfire Adept (DrM, be sure to add online breath effects)
Dragon Shaman (PHB2)
Jester (DC)
Hexblade (CW)
Marshal (MH)
Master (WotL)
Montebank (DC)
Nightstalker (RoA)
Savant (DC)
Scout (CAdv)
Spellthief (CArc)
Sohei (OA)
Totemist (MoI)
Warlock (CArc)
Warmage (CArc)
Ardent (CPsi)
Beguiler (PHB2)
Binder (TM, without the online vestiges)
Crusader (ToB)
Dread Necromancer (HH)
Duskblade (PHB2)
Factotum (Dun)
Incarnate (MoI)
Psychic Rogue (online, wotc webpage)
Psychic Warrior (XPH)
Shadowcaster (TM)
Shugenja (CD)
Swordsage (ToB)
Warblade (ToB)
Wilder (XPH)


Do realize that this doesn't include information about alternative class features, and doesn't talk about 'dips'. For example, a Fighter or a Monk dip could be useful for the right character, and a Thug, Dungeon Crasher, Zhentarim Soldier, Skilled City Dweller, Overpowering Attack, Physical Prowess, Resolute Fighter would be in the 'appropriately balanced' range, able to stand on it's own.

[jedipotter]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?

In general you want to stick with the Core-ish type books. Any book with a wacky add on subsystem like the Tome of Battle, the Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarinum should be banned.

[Gavinfoxx]

In general you want to stick with the Core-ish type books. Any book with a wacky add on subsystem like the Tome of Battle, the Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarinum should be banned.

Why? This actively increases imbalance. It does the opposite of what the OP is asking for -- balance. It's like asking, 'how do I stay dry?' and you answer, 'go jump in a pool'. It makes no sense!

[Vhaidara]

In general you want to stick with the Core-ish type books. Any book with a wacky add on subsystem like the Tome of Battle, the Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarinum should be banned.

False. I remember I saw an analogy comparing Core Caster vs Core mundane and Fullsplat Caster vs Fullsplat mundane. It was something like this.
Core Caster = Apache helicopter with a rocket launcher
Core Mundane = Grizzly Bear

Fullsplat Caster = Apache helicopter with a rocket launcher, a laser gun, and stealth systems
Fullsplat Mundane = a cyber-grizzly with a dozen arms, acid launchers, wings and fire breath.

The caster still wins, but now the mundane can do some cool stuff while it dies.

[Turion]

In general you want to stick with the Core-ish type books. Any book with a wacky add on subsystem like the Tome of Battle, the Tome of Magic and Magic of Incarinum should be banned.

citation needed

[Zweisteine]

Also you can still totally hit tiers one and two with purely outside core resources. You just don't get any tier one or two starting classes.
Archivist, Artificer, StP Erudite, and possibly the Sha'ir beg to differ.


mixing campaign setting material can create problems, just from the sheer variety of combinations that open up, so i would suggest pulling from no more than two campaign settings, and preferably only one.
This doesn't actually seem like it would be a problem. When mixing settings, fluff has to be redone a bit, but it doesn't make rules stop working very often.


As far as balance goes, I'll just echo what others have said. Dragon Magazine gets banned a lot though, but that's more due to difficulty of access rather than Dragon Magazine being unbalanced(it is, but no more than any other book).
There is a lot of unbalanced stuff in the magazine, but that isn't necessarily a reason to ban it, because just as much well-balanced material is in there.

As for banning systems because they are unfamiliar... Well, I wouldn't recommend it, unless you expect your player to exploit your lack of knowledge. As long as the player using the system knows what they are doing, there shouldn't be a problem with them using it. Of course, if they don't know the system either, or they are likely to make things up about it, you shouldn't let them use it.


I'd say that banning entire books/sources is unadvisable. It's better to ban things on a case-by-case basis, rather than all at once. Let the players make characters, and look them over to be sure they didn't twist anything into a game-breaking combo. If you see a kobold psion focused entirely on knowledge (the planes), remind them that a Sarrukh can not grant manipulate form to anyone else, or simply that Sarrukhs do not exist.

[nyjastul69]

It really, really isn't.


I never understand people who say this. Print out Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) (or make your own, either way you should probably have a readily accessible way to know your spells/abilities anyway), make a lil deck out of your readied maneuvers and shuffle it... That's pretty much it.
Combat starts? Draw a few. On your turn? Draw one. Can't draw anymore? Shuffle and do it again. It is incredibly simple.


Easily house-ruled to work on things you want it to and doesn't warrant banning an entire book.


Pedantry.


Not... confusing? Ex abilities by definition are allowed to break the laws of physics. I think this remains a typical kneejerk "he did something traditionally magical with no magic!" reaction to martial characters getting maneuverability options. Also: more pedantry! If it bothers you so much throw (Su) on it and call it a day.


Yeah, they didn't finish it. Book still works.

Seriously, of those, only the first is one that is even mildly confusing. It's not that bad.

As for the actual topic, don't ban books, ban specific combinations of things that actively cause trouble at the table. Part of this comes from knowing your players and the types of things they get into. I've seen DMs go through so much trouble making an intricate ban-list only to have their players roll up a bunch of vanilla characters. What's your expected power level (or one you feel you can handle)?

Some people find ToB to be confusing. Because you do not find it confusing does not mean others don't find it confusing.

I personally don't ban anything. I don't really need to. My players are very good at self moderation as concerns breaking the game.

[Kraken]

Anyone that finds ToB confusing probably also finds a ton of other stuff to be confusing, too. ToB isn't any more complicated than than tripping, grappling, mounted combat, prepared casters, attacks of opportunity, two weapon fighting, and other core rule elements. Though as has been mentioned, adding more subsystems does add more to a DM's plate, in terms of mechanics they need to be able to be able to run during a game. Even if no particular subsystem is itself complicated, I agree with the stance that it's reasonable to place a limit on what's available so that you don't potentially get overwhelmed with the breadth of mechanics your players bring to the table.

[Terazul]

Some people find ToB to be confusing. Because you do not find it confusing does not mean others don't find it confusing.

Well, clearly, yes. That doesn't mean the stuff there is any more complicated than anything that already exists, as others have said :smallconfused: Also why I went out of my way to explain that which I could (and again, out of the things I listed only one of those was an actual mechanic to understand, everything else was just being upset about classifications and headers).

[VoxRationis]

I would say "Spell Compendium" and "Complete Mage."
For the first one, the sheer variety of spells, many poorly balanced in and of themselves, all in one place, makes it too easy to find a spell that has no counter, or that offsets the weaknesses of a given type of spell (i.e., the Orb line versus normal blasting). However, since all of its material comes from other books, if you allow those other books, the ban is pointless, so just keep that in mind.
Complete Mage, among numerous potent spells and prestige classes, features heavy use of reserve feats, which get rid of the last weakness of D&D casters, the fact that they can't do magic for all encounters or they'll be useless when you need them.
Though people say core is highly imbalanced, the fact of the matter is that when people try to make an optimized build, for casters or non-casters, they usually rely on dumpster-diving through half a dozen sourcebooks, so banning sourcebooks does in fact have a mitigating effect on powergaming.

[nyjastul69]

Anyone that finds ToB confusing probably also finds a ton of other stuff to be confusing, too. ToB isn't any more complicated than than tripping, grappling, mounted combat, prepared casters, attacks of opportunity, two weapon fighting, and other core rule elements. Though as has been mentioned, adding more subsystems does add more to a DM's plate, in terms of mechanics they need to be able to be able to run during a game. Even if no particular subsystem is itself complicated, I agree with the stance that it's reasonable to place a limit on what's available so that you don't potentially get overwhelmed with the breadth of mechanics your players bring to the table.

That may be true for some, but not others. I know gamers who are not confused by any of the rules you mention, mounted combat notwithstanding, and can't wrap their mind around ToB. It really is possible. YMMV.

[VoxRationis]

Why does everyone think mounted combat is so confusing? I feel like I've missed something, because it's never once looked complicated to me.

[nyjastul69]

Why does everyone think mounted combat is so confusing? I feel like I've missed something, because it's never once looked complicated to me.

I don't find it confusing. The player I was referring to does however. I don't any of the aforementioned rules confusing. I've played with people who find AoO's confusing, which does nothing but confuse me. It's one of the most clearly written elements of the game.

[The Insanity]

Some people find ToB to be confusing.
And some people find tying shoelaces confusing.

[nyjastul69]

And some people find tying shoelaces confusing.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

[Kraken]

That may be true for some, but not others. I know gamers who are not confused by any of the rules you mention, mounted combat notwithstanding, and can't wrap their mind around ToB. It really is possible. YMMV.

This statement isn't really meaningful in any context unless you can prove that there is more confusion related to ToB than for any of the other things I listed. It's inevitable that some people will be confused by some things, but not by others.


Why does everyone think mounted combat is so confusing? I feel like I've missed something, because it's never once looked complicated to me.

Not everyone does. I don't think mounted combat is complicated, either. Just like not everyone thinks ToB or grappling are complicated. But people that are confused about these things exist, so problems ensue.

[nyjastul69]

This statement isn't really meaningful in any context unless you can prove that there is more confusion related to ToB than for any of the other things I listed. It's inevitable that some people will be confused by some things, but not by others.



Not everyone does. I don't think mounted combat is complicated, either. Just like not everyone thinks ToB or grappling are complicated. But people that are confused about these things exist, so problems ensue.

I apologize if anything I've posted come across as combative. I only tried to take issue with an emphasized absolute statement which was categorically false.

[dextercorvia]

I would say "Spell Compendium" and "Complete Mage."
For the first one, the sheer variety of spells, many poorly balanced in and of themselves, all in one place, makes it too easy to find a spell that has no counter, or that offsets the weaknesses of a given type of spell (i.e., the Orb line versus normal blasting). However, since all of its material comes from other books, if you allow those other books, the ban is pointless, so just keep that in mind.
Complete Mage, among numerous potent spells and prestige classes, features heavy use of reserve feats, which get rid of the last weakness of D&D casters, the fact that they can't do magic for all encounters or they'll be useless when you need them.
Though people say core is highly imbalanced, the fact of the matter is that when people try to make an optimized build, for casters or non-casters, they usually rely on dumpster-diving through half a dozen sourcebooks, so banning sourcebooks does in fact have a mitigating effect on powergaming.

I disagree with some of what you are saying here, but the gist is true. Every additional source adds breadth and depth to the options, which increases the odds of finding a poweful combination.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

T1 may use only Core for options that are not their base class. (So, and Archivist or a Wizard might go into Loremaster, but not Incantatrix.)
T2 may use only Core + one other source for their non-base class options. (So a Sorcerer can pick spells from Spell Compendium, or Races of the Dragon, but not both.)
T3 may use Core + 3 sources
T4 may use Core + 4, etc.

Edit: It might be simpler to let classes pick a number of non-core sources = to their Tier number -- that would allow Archivists to take Knowledge Devotion or have the entire Spell Compendium to choose from, etc.

[Kraken]

I apologize if anything I've posted come across as combative. I only tried to take issue with an emphasized absolute statement which was categorically false.

The statement of mine that you quoted was not meant to be absolute, hence my use of "probably." Unless you're referring to something else? In thinking about it a little more over the course of these replies, it's still hard for me to imagine that there are many who find playing a martial adept to be more complicated than playing a cleric, wizard, druid, or other prepared caster. To be clear, I'm not saying that they don't exist, and I'm curious to see others thoughts on this particular comparison, in fact. Personally, I consider prepared casters to be dramatically more complicated to play than martial adepts. Especially clerics, druids, and others who have unlimited access to their entire spell lists.

[nyjastul69]

The statement of mine that you quoted was not meant to be absolute, hence my use of "probably." Unless you're referring to something else? In thinking about it a little more over the course of these replies, it's still hard for me to imagine that there are many who find playing a martial adept to be more complicated than playing a cleric, wizard, druid, or other prepared caster. To be clear, I'm not saying that they don't exist, and I'm curious to see others thoughts on this particular comparison, in fact. Personally, I consider prepared casters to be dramatically more complicated to play than martial adepts. Especially clerics, druids, and others who have unlimited access to their entire spell lists.

Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. Also, I didn't mean to quote you. I was referring to Terazul's comment 'It really, really isn't.'

ETA: This reminds me of how confused I was by dimensional analysis when I took chemistry. For some reason it flummoxed me for quite some time. Then I 'got it' and said to myself: how was that ever confusing? I think it was the verbiage used, dimensional analysis, sounds complicated. If my teacher had used the term 'unit conversion' I might have caught on quicker. I'm often surprised by what confuses some people.

[Eldest]

You don't want to ban BOOKS. You want to ban CLASSES.

Here are some classes you should consider banning:

Overpowered:

Wizard (PHB)
Cleric (PHB)
Druid (PHB)
Sorcerer (PHB)
Archivist (HoH)
Artificer (EbCS)
Psion (XPH)
Binder (ToM)
Death Master (DC)
Favored Soul (CD)
Mystic (DCS)
Sha'ir (DC)
Shaman (OA)
Spirit Shaman (CD)
Wu Jen (CArc)

Underpowered:

Monk (PHB)
Paladin (PHB)
Fighter (PHB)
Commoner (DMG)
Aristocrat (DMG)
Warrior (DMG)
Expert (DMG)
Divine Mind (CPsi)
Truenamer (TM)
Battledancer (DC)
Eidolon (Gh)
Haeler (MH)
Knight (PHB2)
Lurk (CPsi)
Magewright (EbCS)
Mariner (LotT)
Ninja (CAdv)
Noble (DCS)
Samurai (CW)
Soulbourn (MoI)
Soulknife (XPH)
Swashbuckler (CW)

That leaves, as roughly appropriately balanced, which you should allow as the base classes of your game if you seek balance:

Barbarian (PHB)
Bard (PHB)
Rogue (PHB)
Ranger (PHB)
Adept (DMG)
Dragonfire Adept (DrM, be sure to add online breath effects)
Dragon Shaman (PHB2)
Jester (DC)
Hexblade (CW)
Marshal (MH)
Master (WotL)
Montebank (DC)
Nightstalker (RoA)
Savant (DC)
Scout (CAdv)
Spellthief (CArc)
Sohei (OA)
Totemist (MoI)
Warlock (CArc)
Warmage (CArc)
Ardent (CPsi)
Beguiler (PHB2)
Binder (TM, without the online vestiges)
Crusader (ToB)
Dread Necromancer (HH)
Duskblade (PHB2)
Factotum (Dun)
Incarnate (MoI)
Psychic Rogue (online, wotc webpage)
Psychic Warrior (XPH)
Shadowcaster (TM)
Shugenja (CD)
Swordsage (ToB)
Warblade (ToB)
Wilder (XPH)


Do realize that this doesn't include information about alternative class features, and doesn't talk about 'dips'. For example, a Fighter or a Monk dip could be useful for the right character, and a Thug, Dungeon Crasher, Zhentarim Soldier, Skilled City Dweller, Overpowering Attack, Physical Prowess, Resolute Fighter would be in the 'appropriately balanced' range, able to stand on it's own.

I would say Wilder should be on the overpowered list and Binder should not be (don't allow the one vestige that lets you summon monsters and it should be fine).

[Vhaidara]

He has Binder (no online vestiges) in the allowed list.

And Wilder gets a grand total of...11 Powers Known. That is insanely balanced when you consider that's across 9 levels of powers.

[Talya]

Tome of Battle doesn't provide a new sub-system. It does give a simplified version of the standard "Vancian Spellcasting" that applies to melee combat instead of spells, but it is extremely simplified. If you can almost understand the concept of a wizard memorizing spells and then using them up as they cast them, then TOB is child's play.

[nyjastul69]

Tome of Battle doesn't provide a new sub-system. It does give a simplified version of the standard "Vancian Spellcasting" that applies to melee combat instead of spells, but it is extremely simplified. If you can almost understand the concept of a wizard memorizing spells and then using them up as they cast them, then TOB is child's play.

I would have thought that too... except for that one person. ;)

[Phelix-Mu]

Tome of Battle doesn't provide a new sub-system. It does give a simplified version of the standard "Vancian Spellcasting" that applies to melee combat instead of spells, but it is extremely simplified. If you can almost understand the concept of a wizard memorizing spells and then using them up as they cast them, then TOB is child's play.

Which is valid, except that it's often the case that ToB classes are suggested as substitutes for other mundanes, not for casters. It's a step up from "full attack...full attack...full attack" to "activate stance as swift action, expend maneuver x, prepare to refresh next round...blah blah blah." So, not so curiously, the people for which ToB is too confusing are probably not up to playing prepared casters either. I have several friends just like this. One played an almost vanilla fighter through most of 20 levels, and had good fun. He could probably handle ToB, but why bother fixing what ain't broke.

[Svata]

I allow SS with a skeptical eye. The type pyramid is right out, and I generally prefer homebrewed monster classes to the ones in there. Oh, and tauric and symbiotic templates are just messed up. The other templates and most of the anthropomorphic animals are okay for PCs, and it a player really wants to play a MM succubus, they'll probably need SS.

CP is in the same boat. In general, I skip the rule rewrites (which because of primary source I believe aren't even RAW anyway). Erudite needs some finessing (no, at 20th you do not get 99 unique powers per day) and Divine Mind should die in a fire, but other than that it's not bad.

The Lurk kinda blows too.

[Phelix-Mu]

I actually really kind of liked the concept behind divine mind (passive support tank), but they moronically, infamously butchered the execution. I really can't overemphasize that.

[Shining Wrath]

They dropped 3.0 and started 3.5 for various reasons, some of them good.

Therefore, I ban 3.0 material not replicated later in 3.5. Appeals are entertained. It seems that mostly that means "Book of Vile Darkness". Some people get a sad that they can't Mind Rape. Learn to live with your disappointment. If your wizard isn't powerful enough without Vile Darkness I can't help you.

Also, I don't like Dragon Magazine stuff. A lot of that was NOT playtested for balance (or anything else). Example being the Executioner's Mace, which does all 3 sorts of damage (B/P/S) in one weapon. I know melee types need love but that thing is just cheesy (and look at the picture if you want an example of a weapon that looks good in fantasy art but would have gotten you killed quickly in a real battle).

I notice that some people consider Tome of Battle too confusing for use. My table includes several people with technical degrees (engineers, programmers) and the other people aren't dumb or uneducated.

We found ToB easy to understand. We, collectively, had a difficult time with grapple. If your table allows grapple, I'd say your table can handle ToB.

[nyjastul69]

They dropped 3.0 and started 3.5 for various reasons, some of them good.

Therefore, I ban 3.0 material not replicated later in 3.5. Appeals are entertained. It seems that mostly that means "Book of Vile Darkness". Some people get a sad that they can't Mind Rape. Learn to live with your disappointment. If your wizard isn't powerful enough without Vile Darkness I can't help you.

Also, I don't like Dragon Magazine stuff. A lot of that was NOT playtested for balance (or anything else). Example being the Executioner's Mace, which does all 3 sorts of damage (B/P/S) in one weapon. I know melee types need love but that thing is just cheesy (and look at the picture if you want an example of a weapon that looks good in fantasy art but would have gotten you killed quickly in a real battle).

I notice that some people consider Tome of Battle too confusing for use. My table includes several people with technical degrees (engineers, programmers) and the other people aren't dumb or uneducated.

We found ToB easy to understand. We, collectively, had a difficult time with grapple. If your table allows grapple, I'd say your table can handle ToB.

I don't think anyone posting in this thread actually finds ToB confusing. It does seem that those people exist though. I know for a fact that there is at least one person that can get Vancian casting and not ToB. Please don't ask me why, I don't get it.

[Vhaidara]

I think ToB might have come across more clearly if it wasn't trying so hard not to be magic.

Maneuvers known = spells known
Maneuvers Readied = Spells Prepared
Refresh Maneuvers = reset spells prepared

Sure, it leaves out stances, and crusaders are still kind of unexplained (I know there are ways around it, but it is still something new).

And just saying, I don't mind ToB. I make some modifications. I limit IHS. I put the Su tag on a fair portion of Shadow Hand and a few bits of Devoted Spirit (if Desert Wind can live with it so can Shadow Hand). Disallow White Raven Tactics cheese and d2 crusader. But I do like it.

Oh, and the other problem they had was naming. You know, the stuff that led to "The Book of Weaboo Fightin' Magic" jokes. Yes, Diamond Mind, I'm looking at you. And you too, Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike.

[Pex]

Individual feats, spells, prestige classes, etc. might cause problems for some tables but not others. If you ask for which specific ones to watch out for you will get plenty of repeat responses of the more common ones, such as Divine Metamagic feat, the spell Celerity, and the prestige class Planar Shepherd. However, you will also get conflicting responses. Some people hate Teleport with a passion while others have no issues with it all. Discussion will inevitably talk about "Tiers" with everyone espousing their favorite and bashing the others. Sprinkle in a hatefest against the monk class specifically as well.

To answer your question specifically, foremost should be only allow books you have or someone can bring to the table for you to read. Anything online or from some Dragon Magazine issue, while Honest True may be alright, err on the side of caution to leave out. The next question is how complex do you want your game to be. If you prefer simplicity and would rather everyone just use the same game system, then any book that doesn't use the same system should also not be used, despite how some people love them. This means no Tome of Magic and its beloved binding magic system, no Magic of Incarnum and its beloved incarnum magic system, no Expanded Psionics and its beloved and controversial psionics system, and no Tome of Battle and its beloved and controversial warrior combat system. There's nothing particularly wrong with those books. Other tables use them with great enjoyment and no problems at all. They just might not be for you.

The Complete series of splat books you should allow. They add variety and new ideas to spice up the game. Do note the Warlock class is its own separate magic system. You could still ban it just like you would ban a specific feat, spell, or prestige class. You could also allow it and see how a different system fits in with the game in general to decide if you may want to give the others mentioned previously a try in some game in the future.

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...
The Complete series of splat books you should allow. They add variety and new ideas to spice up the game. Do note the Warlock class is its own separate magic system. You could still ban it just like you would ban a specific feat, spell, or prestige class. You could also allow it and see how a different system fits in with the game in general to decide if you may want to give the others mentioned previously a try in some game in the future.

Warlock and Dragonfire Adept should stand or fall together. One invocation-wielding blaster is much like another.

[Story]

And Wilder gets a grand total of...11 Powers Known. That is insanely balanced when you consider that's across 9 levels of powers.

Educated Wilders get 15. Still far less than other psionic classes though.

[Vhaidara]

So instead of being Sorcerers with 1.2 spells known/spell level, they're sorcerers with 1.6 spells known/spell level. Still significantly lacking in the versatility department.

[Zweisteine]

T1 may use only Core for options that are not their base class. (So, and Archivist or a Wizard might go into Loremaster, but not Incantatrix.)
T2 may use only Core + one other source for their non-base class options. (So a Sorcerer can pick spells from Spell Compendium, or Races of the Dragon, but not both.)
T3 may use Core + 3 sources
T4 may use Core + 4, etc.

Edit: It might be simpler to let classes pick a number of non-core sources = to their Tier number -- that would allow Archivists to take Knowledge Devotion or have the entire Spell Compendium to choose from, etc.
That's just not nice, telling the best classes they can't have the best candy.

I have had a similar idea though, limiting the books available by tier. It went something like this:

Everyone gets the SRD (and the things from core not in the SRD). Everyone also gets the Magic Item Compendium. Everyone also gets the book their base class came out of.

I think my system ended up as something like giving each character their tier +1 or +2 books. Then I realized that it's not that simple. Where does a fighter 3/wizard 7 fall? Where does a fighter 5/wizard 5 fall? And does this really help the problem at all?

I think it doesn't help the problem. Even with only one or two extra books, a caster can be nearly as powerful as with them all (especially because of the Spell Compendium). This will just end up making the players more mad, and more likely to try to exploit the rules they have available to them.


The best way to fight optimization is to do so in the game. If you have a wizard who can burn anything to death instantly, set a fire elemental on him. Be careful not to throw only immune enemies at him, but you could have the enemies be smart, and maybe even optimize the NPCs themselves. If the aforementioned fire mage is going to fight an evil wizard, that wizard might have some counterspells (via dispel magic) ready, and summon a fire elemental. Don't overdo it, but make sure the fights are still challenging.

And, of course, if the player goes into the realm of theoretical optimization in a game, he'll draw unwanted attention. If a wizard wipes an entire region off the map (locate city bomb), somebody is going to get mad. Probably Heironeus or Pelor.
If he tries to ascend as pun-pun, he'll discover that it already happened, and the first pun-pun decreed that Sarrukhs can't grant manipulate form, and that summoned Sarrukhs can't use it at all, and that becoming pun-pun despite those restrictions results in instant death anyway.

[lunar2]

They dropped 3.0 and started 3.5 for various reasons, some of them good.

Therefore, I ban 3.0 material not replicated later in 3.5. Appeals are entertained. It seems that mostly that means "Book of Vile Darkness". Some people get a sad that they can't Mind Rape. Learn to live with your disappointment. If your wizard isn't powerful enough without Vile Darkness I can't help you.

Also, I don't like Dragon Magazine stuff. A lot of that was NOT playtested for balance (or anything else). Example being the Executioner's Mace, which does all 3 sorts of damage (B/P/S) in one weapon. I know melee types need love but that thing is just cheesy (and look at the picture if you want an example of a weapon that looks good in fantasy art but would have gotten you killed quickly in a real battle).

I notice that some people consider Tome of Battle too confusing for use. My table includes several people with technical degrees (engineers, programmers) and the other people aren't dumb or uneducated.

We found ToB easy to understand. We, collectively, had a difficult time with grapple. If your table allows grapple, I'd say your table can handle ToB.

doing all three types of physical damage isn't really a big deal. anything with a bite attack already does that, while several weapons (including claws) cover 2 damage types. and seriously, any primary damage dealer actually worried about DR isn't doing enough damage per hit to begin with. DR is a minor annoyance to melee characters, not a make or break type deal.

[sonofzeal]

So instead of being Sorcerers with 1.2 spells known/spell level, they're sorcerers with 1.6 spells known/spell level. Still significantly lacking in the versatility department.

Keep in mind that psionic powers are generally a lot more flexible than spells. "Psionic Charm" is both Charm Person and Charm Monster (and a multi-day version of each), while "Energy Ray" is a first level blasting power than can hit four energy types and has no CL limit, making it a substitute for a vast suite of potential spells (compare Polar Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polarRay.htm)).

A Psion with 1.6 powers known per level is a hell of a lot more flexible than a Sorcerer with 1.6 spells known per level.

Also... I mean, seriously, look at the Wilder for a minute. Compare it to Sorcerer or Psion. You've got better BAB (easier to hit with those touch attacks at low level or against foes who've optimized their touch AC), better AC, better skills, get armor+weapon proficiencies, and have actual class features. They shouldn't have quite the raw spellslinging power of a Sorcerer (or Psion). In many ways, they're more easily compared to Bards or Warmages, with potential access to the full range of options, just not all at the same time.

[Kennisiou]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Weapons of Legacy so far, as I recall it as a sourcebook getting a fair amount of hate for being confusing and making a few things stronger than they needed to be. Not sure how true it is, as I've not read the book and nobody I play with has ever tried to use anything from it, but I'd put it with serpent kingdom under the "doesn't need to be banned but definitely read anything a player wants to use from this book and look at it in the context of your game to see if it's appropriate" category.

[nyjastul69]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Weapons of Legacy so far, as I recall it as a sourcebook getting a fair amount of hate for being confusing and making a few things stronger than they needed to be. Not sure how true it is, as I've not read the book and nobody I play with has ever tried to use anything from it, but I'd put it with serpent kingdom under the "doesn't need to be banned but definitely read anything a player wants to use from this book and look at it in the context of your game to see if it's appropriate" category.

It seems to get hate for being the wrong execution of the right idea. It's generally considered underpowered.

[Gavinfoxx]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Weapons of Legacy so far, as I recall it as a sourcebook getting a fair amount of hate for being confusing and making a few things stronger than they needed to be. Not sure how true it is, as I've not read the book and nobody I play with has ever tried to use anything from it, but I'd put it with serpent kingdom under the "doesn't need to be banned but definitely read anything a player wants to use from this book and look at it in the context of your game to see if it's appropriate" category.

No, nothing overpowered there. More in the dangerously underpowered and self gimping...

[dextercorvia]

<an excellent demonstration of why my quick and dirty fix was wrong>



Yeah, that makes sense. Good thing I allow pretty much everything when I run a game, including homebrew if it seems reasonable. My idea would cause more trouble than it would be worth.

I think the best rule is, "Don't be a....."

[sonofzeal]

Personally, I ban Complete Champion. It's got a wide range of massively over-the-top options, a lot of editing mistakes, ambiguous rules, poor wordings..... it's just borked. A while ago, just to demonstrate, I opened it up to a random page and found literally a dozen separate issues. It's one of the last 3.5 books published, and I think they just stopped caring because they were already ramping up for 4e.

Don't use Complete Champion.

[deuxhero]

It seems to get hate for being the wrong execution of the right idea. It's generally considered underpowered.

The right execution is a single feat in BoED: Ancestral Relic. With a tiny bit of tweaking it's perfect (Drop the "good" requirement and let you transform a weapon to masterwork or special materials by paying the costs, plus drop the max value thing). You don't really need anything more than that.

[kkplx]

And some faith in the internet was restored that day. I'm just asking if there are any out there that simply shouldn't be allowed. I guess not.

Don't ban books, ban specific options.

Planar Sheperd, Synchronity, Celerity Line, Greenbound and Ashbound summoning, etc - google stuff like "most broken feats/spells/options in D&D 3.5" to get an idea. Then disregard any complaints regarding Tome of Battle (except Ironheart Surge, **** that one) and ban the worst offenders. This takes a little more time than just banning entire books, but it leaves more options open. With that in mind, I highly suggest disallowing Flaws but changing feat progression to Pathfinder Style.

2 Things that scared me as a GM in my game but I allowed them because, hey, core casters are stupid to begin with, no need to disallow/screw over others: Psionics and Tome of Battle.

Psionics are a compendium of overall strong and versatile (Semi-)Sorcerers, and actually have very few broken things. Just implement the Magic-Psionics Transparency rules and you'll be fine. You might even want to buff them a little.

Tome of Battle is the one sourcebook a mundane player (melee guys without actual casting, for the most part) can turn to to stay competitive for the better part of almost all campaigns (level 1 - 9+). Its options overall are strong, and are better than core Fighters, monks and barbarians, but that's more of an issue of their core counterparts being horribly underpowered compared to magical classes. This book CAN lead to issues though if you combine its classes with players that run unoptimized core mundane classes.

[Story]

Instead of banning a bunch of things upfront, why not talk to your players about what they're planning to do ahead of time and make sure they're all at roughly compatible optimization levels?

A set banlist means that people will just use the most broken options not on the banlist. Talking to people means you hopefully won't need a list at all.

[ryu]

Instead of banning a bunch of things upfront, why not talk to your players about what they're planning to do ahead of time and make sure they're all at roughly compatible optimization levels?

A set banlist means that people will just use the most broken options not on the banlist. Talking to people means you hopefully won't need a list at all.

That's what happens if you ban explicitly on power and have a spiteful group. Better reasons to ban would be things like not having the book in question, not being familiar with the book in question, or banning use of options that take things out of a given expected competence level. That competence level could easily be anywhere from tiers 2-4 with a few rarer exceptions. Some people play tier ones the group around to experience incredible power and massively tactical combat. Some people play tiers five or six the group around to experience a significantly lower amount of power.

Depending on whether the world also scales down or not this would be analogous to that time I played through the entirety of fallout 3 with no weapons outside the hunting rifle and spiked knuckles, no armor better than 20% damage resistance at any point, Realistic weapon damage mod, Increased spawns, less friendly treasure generation, no stealing, no collecting bobbleheads for better stats, and a level cap of ten. How did that work while I was clearing the deathclaw caverns? Not well....

[Talya]

They dropped 3.0 and started 3.5 for various reasons, some of them good.

Therefore, I ban 3.0 material not replicated later in 3.5. Appeals are entertained. It seems that mostly that means "Book of Vile Darkness". Some people get a sad that they can't Mind Rape. Learn to live with your disappointment. If your wizard isn't powerful enough without Vile Darkness I can't help you.

Good job for him the spell was replicated in CArc without the [Evil] descriptor and renamed "Programmed Amnesia."

[Vhaidara]

It does have a few other drawbacks. Permanent duration instead of Instantaneous, and a 10 minute casting time instead of 1 standard action.

[Feint's End]

Synchronisity

See I see that suggested very often but few people actually know what the power those and just suggest banning it because of the Linked Power Cheese.
Synchronicity itself is absolutely no problem. Basically it just lets you make better prepared options (not naming the trigger condition or for more powerpoints not naming the action) and is actually pretty cool. It just gets broken when used with Linked Power for extra standardactions or with Dominant Ideal Ardent for Infinite Actions (again with Linked Power).

If at all ban Linked Power but even this feat isn't op if not abused and used by the right classes (Psywars might not have the actions to buff up for more than one rounds ... meet Linked Power to buff up faster).

[kellbyb]

It does have a few other drawbacks. Permanent duration instead of Instantaneous, and a 10 minute casting time instead of 1 standard action.

Because it's incredibly easy to stop a level 20 wizard from casting a 10 minute spell and extremely difficult to reduce that casting time, am I right?

[Jeff the Green]

I disagree with some of what you are saying here, but the gist is true. Every additional source adds breadth and depth to the options, which increases the odds of finding a poweful combination.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

T1 may use only Core for options that are not their base class. (So, and Archivist or a Wizard might go into Loremaster, but not Incantatrix.)
T2 may use only Core + one other source for their non-base class options. (So a Sorcerer can pick spells from Spell Compendium, or Races of the Dragon, but not both.)
T3 may use Core + 3 sources
T4 may use Core + 4, etc.

Edit: It might be simpler to let classes pick a number of non-core sources = to their Tier number -- that would allow Archivists to take Knowledge Devotion or have the entire Spell Compendium to choose from, etc.

Ick. The problem with this is that it eliminates a lot of ways casters can play low power options. gishes are going to have a hard time, and most casting PrCs lose levels. If you want to do something about high-tier PrCs say that every tier 1-2 class progresses at maximum of 4 levels of casting per 5 HD. This makes the higher powered PrCs less attractive and the lower power ones more.

[eggynack]

Because it's incredibly easy to stop a level 20 wizard from casting a 10 minute spell and extremely difficult to reduce that casting time, am I right?
The other factor, the permanent duration, seems somewhat more relevant than the casting time. It means that the control is vulnerable to stuff like dispelling, which is a troubling thing when you're counting on the spell to give you a perfectly controlled person.

[Vhaidara]

Also, it leads to some interesting problems. Like if it is dispelled, do you lose whatever you learned from casting it?

[Zweisteine]

I think the best rule is, "Don't be a....."
Agreed.

You can't go wrong with that one. Your players can make it go wrong, but you can't.

[Vhaidara]

I have a Rule 1 that I give to my players:
Don't break my game, and, when I try to break your characters, I'll be fair.

[HunterOfJello]

0. Don't ban sourcebooks. That's a rookie mistake and will not help you. The most broken book is the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. Bannings books will not curb exploitation or power levels. D&D 3.5 is just not set up that way. Besides, every book out there with extremely powerful material also has lower powered acceptable material in it.

The only book that should be considered banned without express DM permission on a case-by-case basis is Unearthed Arcana (and it says that in the first few pages that all of the material in the book is optional, not automatically available by any means.)

1. Ask your players to talk about their builds with one another and try to all achieve a similar tier/power level.
2. If you have a specific tier level for the party that you're expecting, then tell them.
Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)
Tier System for PrCs (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0)

Watch out for the appearance for Tier +2 PrCs alongside Tier 1 classes.

3. READ THEIR CHARACTER SHEETS and ask them what each specific ability does and is for. If they have combos or anything involved then you should be in the know (though the other players don't have to be.) A DM is not the enemy and should not be kept out of the loop on anything.

However, if you do not bother to read their character sheets and ask them what they plan on doing with their abilities then it's your own fault when they polymorph into a 12HD outsider with 51AC and poison attacks that can kill almost anyone with 2-3 hits.


4. Check out the Test of Spite 3.51 Fix and Ban List (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124216-The-Test-of-Spite-3-51)


The Great Rules:


Per round, no more than the following is permitted:
Two full round actions Or three full attacks per character
Three Standard actions per character
Three Move actions per character
Two Swift actions per character
Thirty Free actions per character
Immediates count against your maximum of swifts


Per round, no more than the following is permitted per minion, familiar, or companion:
One full round action.
Two Standard actions.
Two Move actions.
One Swift actions.
Ten Free actions.
Immediates count against the maximum of swifts



General :


You may gain membership benefits from only one organization with mechanical benefits. If the organization possesses an Affiliation score mechanic, you are treated as a member of rank two (2).
Aasimar and similarly all native outsiders do not grant weapon proficiencies for the purposes of class qualification.
Rebuilding rules are banned as variants.
Greensnake Naga's telepathy is considered to have a 30 foot range for the purposes of mindsight.
Dragonlance's dragonspawn templates are banned.
Ghostwalk's LA+0 ghost template is banned, unless your opponent is also using it.
Feats, abilities, and other benefits granted by spells or items may not be used to fulfill any qualification requirement. This excludes Psychic Reformation and similar instantaneous effects.
All forms of awaken are banned.
Splitting and similar effects copy only the item, not positive effects currently on it.
Due to the ongoing interference of the Dark Powers, divinely granted templates are not permitted in ravenloft, and all who have them are stripped of them, with the exclusion of saint which they rightly find hilarious.
Undead are not immune to mind-affecting spells.
Kobolds may not qualify for lore-drake.
Dusk Giants do not exist.
Gem Magic, from Magic of Faerun, is banned.
Each character may use only one magical location.
Mention of the sarrukh should be followed by your home address ;)
Shambling mounds do not exist.
You may not order a creature or player to fail a save in any fashion.
Initiate of Mystra is banned. Really. Really. Banned.
Pazuzu does not exist.
You may have one clone, and it must be on Ravenloft. Clones are 14k.
The Far Realms do not exist.
Time Travel is soft-banned, in that where-ever you travel to, the hounds will be there. Temporal regression is permitted, but long chains ( x>2 ) are not. Time hop and similar are permitted.
Faustian Pacts, as described in FCII, are banned.



Source Material


Iron Kingdoms material is allowed on a case by case basis.
Dragon and Dungeon Magazine are banned.
Serpent Kingdoms is approval-only material.
Savage Species is approval-only material.
Stronghold Builder's Guide is banned.



Unearthed Arcana :

The following takes the form of an allow list, rather than a ban list.
Flaws and traits.
Variant classes.
Additional Favored Class feat.
Racial paragons.
I may have forgotten things previously allowed. Please ask if you are curious.


q_____________________________________p

Base Classes :

Fighter is banned, excluding dungeoncrasher.
Erudite is banned.
Domain wizards are banned.
Monk is full-bab.
Unarmed swordsage is legal.
All druids are aspect druids as per UA. In addition, all sources of wild shape are banned.
Swordsages gain adaptive style as a bonus feat at level 4. Swordsages also get 6x skill points at first level, despite it being a clear error. Just too cool to take away.
Clerics are not alignment locked.
All clerics are cloistered clerics.
Artificers may only shuffle bonuses between enhancement, insight, and competence.
1d2 crusaders do not exist.
Archivists are limited to the following sources for spells known at start:
Spoiler
Hide

Domain lists, Cleric, Druid, Shugenja, Ranger, Paladin, Healer, Adept.
Other divine casters by permission

Banned:
Runescarred Berserker list
Arcane spells turned into divine scrolls by means not covered or permitted by the above.
Focused specialists do not exist.
All prepared casters start with at minimum one spell scribed per level.
Prepared casters should buy every spell they expect to need. Getting more will be ludicrously difficult.



Prestige Classes :


Subverted Psion is banned.
Ultimate Magus cannot progress the same class twice.
If it would do so at a given level, it offers only one level of progress instead. Consider this to be the general rule in similar cases.
Vermin Lord is banned.
Spelldancer is banned.
Walker in the Wastes is banned
Arcane Archers may use crossbows.
Rainbow Servants are a 8/10 casting class that loses a caster level at first and second.
Planar Shepherd is banned.
Master of Many Forms is impossible to qualify for, or ought to be, and is banned.
Master Transmogrist is impossible to qualify for, or ought to be, and is banned.
Ruby Knight Vindicators may gain only one additional swift action per turn.
Tainted scholar and tainted sorcerer are both banned until a suitable fix is suggested.
Dweomerkeeper is banned.
Cancer mage is banned.
Incantatrix is banned.
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil's veils duplicate the effect of layers, rather than the effects of the whole spell, and are thus subject to dispelling and AMF. Beyond this, the class is unchanged.



Feats :


Epic feats are banned.
Retraining is not permitted except in extraordinary cases where a feat becomes useless.
Lightning Maces is now banned.
Sanctum Spell does not apply for determining if you can affect a spell with items or spells.
Battle Jump is banned.
Adaptive style refreshes your maneuvers.
Mortalbane does not allow stacking uses. Arcane strike does not allow stacking uses. This should be considered precedent.
Item familiars are banned.
Greenbound Summoning is banned.
Mercantile background is banned.
Uncanny forethought is banned.
Arcane thesis affects only the first applied metamagic.
Leadership, Undead Leadership, Thrallherd, and Dragon Cohort are banned. Similar or derivative effects are also banned.
Legendary locations that grant feats are unilaterally excluded from serving as pre-requisites. You may only use one per character.
Extra spell is not list specific, but may be taken precisely once and with DM approval.
Reserves of Strength is banned.
Rapid-strike is banned.
Craft Contingent Spell has double XP costs, these cannot be reduced, and may produce only three contingent spells at a time. The conditions must be as or more exact than contingency normally requires, but no proofing assistance will be offered.



Spells, Spell-Like Abilities, Maneuvers, and Powers

Teleportation subschool is now part of the evocation school.
Enchantment and Abjuration are now one school.
Polymorph, alter self, metamorphosis, and all derivatives not specifying a single shape are likewise banned.
Genesis is banned.
Metaconcert is banned.
Beastland Ferocity is banned, being useless except in conjunction with delay death.
Wish is replaced in all ways by Miracle.
Forced Dream is banned.
Love's Pain is banned.
Planar Binding and direct derivatives are banned.
Planar Ally and direct derivatives are banned.
Command undead is banned.
Psionic Lion's Charge now has a duration of one round as intended, instead of the ridiculously stupid instantaneous duration it possessed.
Iron Heart Surge is banned pending a re-write.
Mirror Move is banned.
Explosive runes is banned.
Timestop is explicitly banned.
Gate can no longer be used to call or summon.
Energy Transformation Field is banned.
Epic spells are banned.
Leech Ghost Skill is banned.
SLAs are not free of expensive or somatic components.
Embrace\Shun The Dark Chaos is permitted, but cannot be done during character creation. If you can pull it off in the dungeon or the arenas, my commendations await.
Glyph Seals do not accept personal range spells.
There are no free wishes.
Starmantle Cloak and evasion do not stack.
Contingency cannot be cast from a ring of spell storing.
Ice assassin's material components cannot be obviated in any fashion.
Anything you bring in via planar binding or ally cannot leave, and will be incredibly angry about this.
Degenerate-case stacking of consumptive field will result in immediate consumption by the hounds.
Dweomer of Transference only converts spells cast by its caster.
Fusion is banned.
Simulacrum is banned.
Fimbulwinter is banned.
Mindblank and all derivatives are subject to a caster level check at a penalty dependent on available information.
The Locate Cities trick does not work.
Planeshift does not work, as you are trapped in ravenloft.
Contact Other Plane and similar effects that use a consultation with a higher power always reach the Dark Powers instead of the intended target. While ungood, this does not negate the spells.
Acorn of Far Travel is banned.
Celerity's dazing effect cannot be obviated even by immunity.
White Raven Tactics may be used precisely once per battle per player.



Metamagic and Metapsionics


Persistant Spell's range requirements can not be obfuscated by any means, including but not limited to Ocular Spell, Reach spell, or any variant thereof. In the case of exhibition matches, Earthbound spell may be allowed.
Touch range is not a fixed range.
Metamagic costs have a strict minimum value of one, unless the ability specifically reduces them to zero, such as DMM or an alternate cost payment method.
Split psionic ray must have a target for each new ray it ends up producing.
Alert me if you plan to use Linked Power, and explain why.



Magic Items and Crafting


Dust of sneezing and choking is banned.
Items may not be bought at a price reduction. This does not apply to crafting but does prohibit writing a friendly crafter into your backstory, the purchase of partially charged items, the use of curses or item flaws, and similar.
The Ring of the Beast is banned.
Aptitude weapons are banned.
Creation costs are:
(Gold, Exp)= (J*(1/2)*Base_price, K*(1/25)*Base_price)
Where K and J are cost reductions from feats or class features and may go no lower than .65
Custom item creation is not permitted except as per the bonus stacking\slot stacking rules in the MiC. This includes traps.
Custom runestaves, weapons, armor, shields, scrolls, scepters, and full-charged wands are in exception to this rule. Staffs are not.
Psionic items may be customized on an approval-only basis, as some of the rules effectively demand it.
Attempts to get a custom item other than the above exceptions will likely be disapproved, but if you aren't sure, please, ask anyway.
Amulet of second chances is banned.
Thoughtbottle is banned.
Candle of Invocation is not banned, but will get you eaten by the Hounds.
Nightsticks do not stack.
Feathered Wings from Fiend Folio have no associated ill effects, having proved too valuable to the meta-game.
Scrolls of higher than 9th level do not exist.
Amulet of Peace is banned.
Turn attempts or similar from multiples of the same item are considered unnamed bonuses from the same source, and thus do not stack.



Skills :


Caster Level from UMD checks caps at 20 for our purposes.
Diplomancy and its ilk are GM-adjudicated rather than running off the provided tables.
Seduction is banned for reasons of verisimilitude.
Intimidate and its results are not mind-affecting.



Good luck!
Oh and bring a shovel in your inventories.


If there is anything in that list that you don't understand why it is banned, then leave it banned. A common mistake that new DMs make is banning things that don't need to be and allowing things that a more experienced DM would automatically ban (like crafting 50 DMG Candles of Invocation).

[lunar2]

No, nothing overpowered there. More in the dangerously underpowered and self gimping...

depends on if you are using the example items, or founding your own legacy. the example items are painfully weak, yes. but founding your own items gets you exactly what you want at a cost that falls between the cost of crafting magic items and the cost of buying magic items, even when you take into account what it would cost for magic items to mitigate the HP/attack bonuses/etc. costs you have to pay. if a player really wants to avoid the christmas tree effect, and is allowed to found their own legacy, the book is fairly well balanced, imo.

on a related note, the x scion prestige classes from UA are broken. faith scion, for example, advances everything a druid cares about, and gives him potentially awesome new abilities. i say potentially since you would have to brew the associated weapon yourself. but you are still getting, by default, more than a baseline druid.

[VoxRationis]

0. Don't ban sourcebooks. That's a rookie mistake and will not help you. The most broken book is the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. Bannings books will not curb exploitation or power levels. D&D 3.5 is just not set up that way. Besides, every book out there with extremely powerful material also has lower powered acceptable material in it.

Spells, Spell-Like Abilities, Maneuvers, and Powers

Teleportation subschool is now part of the evocation school.
Enchantment and Abjuration are now one school.
Polymorph, alter self, metamorphosis, and all derivatives not specifying a single shape are likewise banned.
Genesis is banned.
Metaconcert is banned.
Beastland Ferocity is banned, being useless except in conjunction with delay death.
Wish is replaced in all ways by Miracle.
Forced Dream is banned.
Love's Pain is banned.
Planar Binding and direct derivatives are banned.
Planar Ally and direct derivatives are banned.
Command undead is banned.
Psionic Lion's Charge now has a duration of one round as intended, instead of the ridiculously stupid instantaneous duration it possessed.
Iron Heart Surge is banned pending a re-write.
Mirror Move is banned.
Explosive runes is banned.
Timestop is explicitly banned.
Gate can no longer be used to call or summon.
Energy Transformation Field is banned.
Epic spells are banned.
Leech Ghost Skill is banned.
SLAs are not free of expensive or somatic components.
Embrace\Shun The Dark Chaos is permitted, but cannot be done during character creation. If you can pull it off in the dungeon or the arenas, my commendations await.
Glyph Seals do not accept personal range spells.
There are no free wishes.
Starmantle Cloak and evasion do not stack.
Contingency cannot be cast from a ring of spell storing.
Ice assassin's material components cannot be obviated in any fashion.
Anything you bring in via planar binding or ally cannot leave, and will be incredibly angry about this.
Degenerate-case stacking of consumptive field will result in immediate consumption by the hounds.
Dweomer of Transference only converts spells cast by its caster.
Fusion is banned.
Simulacrum is banned.
Fimbulwinter is banned.
Mindblank and all derivatives are subject to a caster level check at a penalty dependent on available information.
The Locate Cities trick does not work.
Planeshift does not work, as you are trapped in ravenloft.
Contact Other Plane and similar effects that use a consultation with a higher power always reach the Dark Powers instead of the intended target. While ungood, this does not negate the spells.
Acorn of Far Travel is banned.
Celerity's dazing effect cannot be obviated even by immunity.
White Raven Tactics may be used precisely once per battle per player.



Metamagic and Metapsionics


Persistant Spell's range requirements can not be obfuscated by any means, including but not limited to Ocular Spell, Reach spell, or any variant thereof. In the case of exhibition matches, Earthbound spell may be allowed.
Touch range is not a fixed range.
Metamagic costs have a strict minimum value of one, unless the ability specifically reduces them to zero, such as DMM or an alternate cost payment method.
Split psionic ray must have a target for each new ray it ends up producing.
Alert me if you plan to use Linked Power, and explain why.



Magic Items and Crafting


Dust of sneezing and choking is banned.
Items may not be bought at a price reduction. This does not apply to crafting but does prohibit writing a friendly crafter into your backstory, the purchase of partially charged items, the use of curses or item flaws, and similar.
The Ring of the Beast is banned.
Aptitude weapons are banned.
Creation costs are:
(Gold, Exp)= (J*(1/2)*Base_price, K*(1/25)*Base_price)
Where K and J are cost reductions from feats or class features and may go no lower than .65
Custom item creation is not permitted except as per the bonus stacking\slot stacking rules in the MiC. This includes traps.
Custom runestaves, weapons, armor, shields, scrolls, scepters, and full-charged wands are in exception to this rule. Staffs are not.
Psionic items may be customized on an approval-only basis, as some of the rules effectively demand it.
Attempts to get a custom item other than the above exceptions will likely be disapproved, but if you aren't sure, please, ask anyway.
Amulet of second chances is banned.
Thoughtbottle is banned.
Candle of Invocation is not banned, but will get you eaten by the Hounds.
Nightsticks do not stack.
Feathered Wings from Fiend Folio have no associated ill effects, having proved too valuable to the meta-game.
Scrolls of higher than 9th level do not exist.
Amulet of Peace is banned.
Turn attempts or similar from multiples of the same item are considered unnamed bonuses from the same source, and thus do not stack.



Skills :


Caster Level from UMD checks caps at 20 for our purposes.
Diplomancy and its ilk are GM-adjudicated rather than running off the provided tables.
Seduction is banned for reasons of verisimilitude.
Intimidate and its results are not mind-affecting.


For someone who claims that banning sourcebooks won't curb exploitation, you sure ban a lot of non-core magic items, spells, and abilities.
Banning sourcebooks can prevent:
Persistent Spell and its unholy lover, Nightstick-assisted Divine Metamagic
Celerity
Contingent spell crafting
Pun-Pun
And probably a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Furthermore, a lot of your spell alterations don't make any sense, though it's obvious why you want them. Teleportation is applying to yourself what you've been doing to celestial porpoises and the like since level 1; of course it should be in Conjuration. Enchantment is beautifully coherent thematically; mixing it with Abjuration makes no sense.

[Jeff the Green]

For someone who claims that banning sourcebooks won't curb exploitation, you sure ban a lot of non-core magic items, spells, and abilities.
Banning sourcebooks can prevent:
Persistent Spell and its unholy lover, Nightstick-assisted Divine Metamagic
Celerity
Contingent spell crafting
Pun-Pun
And probably a dozen other things I haven't thought of.

Yeah, but banning the sourcebooks for those things has a lot of collateral damage. Off the top of my head, the only feasible way to make a wizard/sorcerer minionmancer necromancer, some of the best boosts to lower tier divine casters, and the best lower tier alternative to wizards. That's why you ban specific options, not books.



Furthermore, a lot of your spell alterations don't make any sense, though it's obvious why you want them. Teleportation is applying to yourself what you've been doing to celestial porpoises and the like since level 1; of course it should be in Conjuration. Enchantment is beautifully coherent thematically; mixing it with Abjuration makes no sense.

Thats because that is the ban list for the Test of Spite, a PvP arena. It's not designed for real play, though it's a decent starting point.

[CyberThread]

honestly, you should ban weapons of legacy

[lunar2]

honestly, you should ban weapons of legacy

why, it's not overpowered even at the highest optimization, and with a little work, it's not even slightly underpowered. are you banning it just because it takes a little work to use it? you might as well ban wizards, then.

[CyberThread]

no am banning it because I don't like it.

[Jeff the Green]

why, it's not overpowered even at the highest optimization, and with a little work, it's not even slightly underpowered. are you banning it just because it takes a little work to use it? you might as well ban wizards, then.

It has the dubious distinction of being both weak and cheesy. Legacy weapons are mostly inferior to what you could get with WBL, but legacy champion lets you get, for instance, an initiator level higher than your HD or way more hellfire damage on a warlock than intended.

It's still not overpowered, though.

[Keld Denar]

Ban everything but the MIC and ToB. Obviously, you still need skills and probably some of the basic feats from the PHB, but other than that, can everything else.

There...game is balanced. Send my check via my secretary.

[lunar2]

no am banning it because I don't like it.

so you are recommending that no one else be able to use a book because you don't like it? classy.


It has the dubious distinction of being both weak and cheesy. Legacy weapons are mostly inferior to what you could get with WBL, but legacy champion lets you get, for instance, an initiator level higher than your HD or way more hellfire damage on a warlock than intended.

It's still not overpowered, though.

any prestige class that specifically advances initiator level already gives you more initiator level than your HD, based on the TOB rules about all prestige classes advancing initiator levels at 1 for 1. giving warlocks more damage is hardly a bad thing. even hellfire warlocks are merely average blasters without seriously high op. and nothing you can do with a warlock is going to get you to mailman or ubercharger damage levels.

there may be exceptions, but if the prestige class isn't already broken, like incantatrix, legacy champion isn't going to break it. i also take issue with using a character option to do exactly what it says on the tin being called cheesy. so, for example, using the dark chaos shuffle to replace a general feat with another general feat, or a fighter feat with another fighter feat. both dark chaos spells are in the same book. of course the writers expected you to use them together. they even share a naming scheme. it's only when you get to trading out elven racial weapon proficiencies, or fighter armor proficiencies that you can really call it cheesy.

anyway, like i said in my post you quoted. carefully built legacy items are significantly cheaper than equivalent bought items, though not as cheap as crafted items. so not weak, but also not overpowered. and that is including buying slotless +HP items and + attack bonus items or + other items to replace the personal costs.

iirc, i built a skillmonkey item (base was an everburning torch, i remember that) that, with replacing the personal costs, would cost about 145,000 gp at level 20. if the same item had been bought, it would have been about 180,000 gp. so the book actually saved me 35,000 gp, which isn't great, but every penny counts.

[ericgrau]

As DM, I need a baseline for what my PCs should expect. So, in order to keep things at a reasonable power level, are there any sourcebooks I shouldn't let them use? For content within, that sort of thing?
I'd ban individual items rather than books. Basically tell everyone to play nice and don't let it get out of hand. No semi-infinite loops/stacking, timeshifted planes, binded genies, and so on. Most people will refrain from such things even without being told, and it's usually so obvious you don't need to write down a rule against them ahead of time. You can pull off such things even in core so snarky people will say to ban core. But to be straight to the point that doesn't help you at all. In fairness I think usually their main point is to not ban any books, which is a good point.

The one time I would ban books is when understanding it all is too overwhelming. Then you might ban things that add a new system like psionics or Tome of Battle. Those are famous both for giving massive headaches to DMs who don't know how to handle them and for getting unfair bans because DMs simply don't know how to handle them. In the long term it would be better to learn those systems instead of disallowing them. You could do similar things with series of books like the completes and "It's X outside" (environment books: stormwrack, frostburn, sandstorm, cityscape, dungeonscape). Then gradually bring back in entire groups at once.

Or instead have a set group of books that you allow and add more and more as time goes on and you're more familiar with them. At minimum I'd consider allowing core, spell compendium, magic item compendium and probably PHB 2 since they add in a lot of basic character options. Then expand from there as fast as you can manage. Sticking to a limited set of books is also a good way to avoid book lugging. Then you might allow one arbitrary set for one campaign, and another arbitrary set for another campaign.

[HunterOfJello]

For someone who claims that banning sourcebooks won't curb exploitation, you sure ban a lot of non-core magic items, spells, and abilities.
Banning sourcebooks can prevent:
Persistent Spell and its unholy lover, Nightstick-assisted Divine Metamagic
Celerity
Contingent spell crafting
Pun-Pun
And probably a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Furthermore, a lot of your spell alterations don't make any sense, though it's obvious why you want them. Teleportation is applying to yourself what you've been doing to celestial porpoises and the like since level 1; of course it should be in Conjuration. Enchantment is beautifully coherent thematically; mixing it with Abjuration makes no sense.

If you want to ban individual things, then go for it. You don't need to ban all of Complete Divine (or Player's Guide to Faerun) just to get rid of Persistent Spell when there are plenty of valid class choices and feats in that book. Pick specific things to ban, not entire books.

Also, that isn't a list I created. That's the list that's used for Test of Spite. If you don't like the entire list, then don't use the entire list. However, there are a lot of good suggestions on that list which is why I use it as a starting point and then whittle things away from there. I wouldn't ever use that entire list but it has a lot of good stuff on it if someone wants a giant list of things to ban.

[DrakePenn]

I don't think anyone really allows Savage Species (which I think is actually 3.0 anyways).

Complete Psionics is a book you should ban because it just all around terrible (It spends a page or so dedicated to "____ mind blade" feats that allow you to shift your mindblade into a different weapon when even core had the common sense to make a single feat that you picked a weapon for) and breaks other books by trying to retcon their rules to something less balanced.

But the Ardent is cool. What about the Erudite? They're both in there.

[deuxhero]

Erudite and Soulbow are both on WotC's site.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060406b&page=1
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060403a&page=2