DM Help First time DM what should I ban? [Archive]

Jthw

2014-04-20, 01:15 AM

So long story short I'm planning on DMing for my group soon and I want to do it right but sometimes the people in the group just like to roflstomp everything the DM throws at them. I want to try to handicap them a bit so I am planning for a desert environment starting at level 4. World essentially desert from overuse of magic and everyone in dire needs of water and their town's oasis is unusable. Obviously I will need to allow SandStorm (and use that book practically as a bible for making the campaign) but I want to know some things that maybe you guys always ban. I want to give them plenty of options and freedom but I don't want to power game and 1-hit kill all of my monsters than are a few CR higher than them already.
Pretty much the group that I'm going to deal with consists of 3 guys which by themselves could be an entire party and are very power game-y.
Then there is the guy who is usually the DM (but has recently gotten tired of it) who knows of all these obscure things that just make him completely OP and isn't even a loop-hole.
And finally the 2 new guys (one of which we tried him DMing and ended up with a splash potion of 3 wishes at level 8) they both usually make these completely stupid characters to try to model them after some anime character and probably end up dying on their own half the time.

I have no idea where to start with on the banning list and I can't really do the strategy of look at what they are asking for and say yes/no because I don't know enough about dnd yet to think "o wait, that senergizes with whatever making it so you get a template with no la" or something of the sort.

We have access to pretty much any book you could name.

Thanks in advance.

deuxhero

2014-04-20, 01:19 AM

LTwerewolf

2014-04-20, 01:37 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?343110-What-sourcebooks-should-I-ban

The same answers apply.

OldTrees1

2014-04-20, 01:38 AM

Ban all Tier 1-2 classes. One of the characteristic of Tier 1-2 classes that make them Tier 1-2 is that they can break you game.

Work with players of Tier 5-6 classes. Discuss ways you and the player could change RAW in order to help realize their character concept.

Mnemnosyne

2014-04-20, 03:36 AM

Given the description of your players, as well as your knowledge...I would recommend you not ban anything. I'm going to assume that these guys aren't jerks, since you haven't said anything that implies that. Since they aren't jerks, it should be reasonable to assume you can work with them, so do so.

Ask them each individually or together, what they want to do with their character. Ask them to explain the things they expect their character to be capable of, and point out particular strategies, synergies, and powerful things that they're setting up. Basically, communicate directly and openly with them about their characters, and ask them to do the same with you. For this, it's also useful to ask them to show you a full character plan that shows what they intend to do all the way up to level 20, at least...or at least, to the highest level you intend the campaign to run, then a couple extra to account for a little wiggle room.

If your players explain their characters to you and explain what they expect to accomplish, then you understand what their characters will be capable of. Furthermore, if they explain they will be able to do things you don't think you can handle...tell them that straight out. As an inexperienced DM, you don't feel you can present a challenge to a character that can do these things...ask them for advice on how to challenge their own characters, or simply ask them to change their plan so their characters don't have the abilities you think you will not be able to make a good game with. It is very important that you not use this to try to shut down their tricks preemptively, though. Just because you know what they can do definitely does not mean you should design the majority of encounters to counteract their strengths. Don't let someone make, say, a character focused on using fear stacking, and then think 'I'll just throw lots and lots of fear-immune enemies at them.' Understand what they can do, take it into account when you design the general strength of encounters they will face, but do not create enemies directly designed to counter them unless those enemies have a logical reason in-character to know the party's strengths and have reason to build in order to counter them.

If, on the other hand, you try to control things by making a ban list instead of working with the players, I'd say it's quite possible that they might have a 'backlash' sort of reaction. I often do, when a DM starts restricting things rather than trying to work with me to make reasonable characters that will do what I want them to. The result of flat out banning things is often for players to look for anything they can use within whatever is allowed, and a distinct feeling of an adversarial relationship between them and the DM.

So, don't ban things, especially not for balance, and especially when you're inexperienced, but talk to your players and try to work it out so they can explain what you need to know to you. You really don't want them to start getting a 'me vs. the DM' mentality because you flat out denied something they wanted without trying to work it out with them.

Madhava

2014-04-20, 04:43 AM

Ban DM-rulings-challenges from players, if they keep interrupting the game. Such a drag. Dispute rules after the game. When it turns out that you did something wrong, just remember for next time, & handle it differently going forward.

And also Cancer Mage/festering anger shenanigans :p In fact, a 'soft ban' on 3.0-only content might make things less confusing/broken.

Zombimode

2014-04-20, 05:07 AM

Nothing.

At least not outright.

If, say, Artificers don't fit your setting, axe them.
Otherwise, there is really no reason for banning anything.

jedipotter

2014-04-20, 05:27 AM

I always ban The Tome of Battle, The Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnium, and the Psionic books out right.

I don't ban single things, I just fix them. For example I make the dreaded Eveloping Pit a true relic only useable by worshipers, not everyone.

Synar

2014-04-20, 05:30 AM

I've seen quite a number of people banning flight or teleport, but often for flavor (travelling being actual journeys,...).
Maybe banning only the most ovepowered spells or capacities (alter self-polymorph-polymorph any object for example) coul work? But this would only be necessary if your players abuse them. And if your players are on the same level of power, this level does not matter, just send and play your monsters in an adapted way.

Komatik

2014-04-20, 06:59 AM

I always ban The Tome of Battle, The Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnium, and the Psionic books out right.

http://imageshack.us/a/img443/4251/ixgr.png

jedipotter

2014-04-20, 07:12 AM

http://imageshack.us/a/img443/4251/ixgr.png

Why the sad face? If your a fan of the above books, you would not like my Old School Killer DM HardCore Unfair type game anyway.

Inevitability

2014-04-20, 07:37 AM

Well, ToB is the best attempt to balance 3.5 that I've seen until now...

But, back to topic, ban everything that allows players to create water/food in any way, or endure without them.

No heroes' feast.
No create food and water.
No Elans.
No... well, you get my point.

Really, give a PC a source of water in the desert and they'll spend all their resources on it, create a decanter of endless water and become the richest people in the world.

killem2

2014-04-20, 07:47 AM

Don't ban anything. Unless you know your players are uber optimizers they are not going to break your game.

Chronos

2014-04-20, 08:02 AM

I'll take a different view: Ban everything that you personally are not highly familiar with. There's an inherent imbalance between the DM and the players, in that each of them has to be familiar only with what they can do, while you have to be familiar with everything any of them can do, plus whatever your monsters can do. If you're not, then you might at worst get players pulling exploits on you, and even at best, you'll get rules arguments come up over interpretations that you really don't want to waste time figuring out at the table, and encounters that end up very poorly balanced (either way too easy or way too hard).

The first time you DM, ban almost everything, to keep things simple for you. Once you're comfortable with that, start studying new things one or two at a time, and allow them as they become comfortable to you.

HaikenEdge

2014-04-20, 08:35 AM

Ban Core. It's the least balanced of all the books, because, at the time it was developed, the designers didn't quite understand game the balance.

BrokenChord

2014-04-20, 08:43 AM

Ban 3.5, convert back to 3.0?

That advice is never received well.

Hm... While it's true that banning Core and the XPH creates the most balanced gameplay, I'll join the group of people saying don't ban anything and talk through all your players' characters with them. That will prepare you for what they'll throw out better than erratic banning ever could.

Komatik

2014-04-20, 08:46 AM

Ban Core. It's the least balanced of all the books, because, at the time it was developed, the designers didn't quite understand game the balance.

And looking at SKR, some still don't.

I would agree with discussing things with the players, and especially discussing what they want to do. That way it's possible to familiarize yourself with material they want to use, ask the forums about it and such.

One good idea might be to familiarize yourself with those, then run a few short campaigns - a couple ones that are intentionally very short so you get a grasp on how they play firsthand and can then try to limit stuff you're uncomfortable with for now, and get an idea what you need to prepare yourself for. That way the players can do some hilarious, unforeseen things to surprise you and not ruin any large investment on your&their part and you can get familiar with more stuff you can then comfortably allow.

Also, if you end up banning something, be upfront about why you are banning it. I've seen way too many DMs ban something for bs reasons because they don't want to say they just don't like something and then come up with all manner of excuses like "Tome of Battle is broken / too wuxia" or just refuse to discuss and say this is how things are. That you're unfamiliar with something or can't get access to something is a 100% valid reason to not allow something, just say so. Likewise, if something has flavour that doesn't fit the game/world you're thinking of running, explore reflavouring options with the player or try to figure out more appropriately powered equivalents if it's power level is a mismatch for the rest of the party (when in doubt, ask here).

Andezzar

2014-04-20, 09:18 AM

Ban 3.5, convert back to 3.0?How are the 3.0 wizards, druids and clericss less overpowered than their 3.5 counterparts? How are the 3.0 monks, fighters and paladins less underpowered than their 3.5 counterparts?

jedipotter

2014-04-20, 09:24 AM

Also, if you end up banning something, be upfront about why you are banning it. I've seen way too many DMs ban something for bs reasons because they don't want to say they just don't like something and then come up with all manner of excuses like "Tome of Battle is broken / too wuxia" or just refuse to discuss and say this is how things are.

It is much better to not give a reason.

No reason:
DM "The Tome of Battle is banned."
Players "Why?"
DM "Because ________"
And the game starts and everyone plays and has fun.

A reason:
DM "The Tome of Battle is banned. Giving fighter types renamed spells is a bad idea. The whole book is just one bad idea. Combat takes long enough without all the ''figher spells''. And worse it is a sub system with no balance in Core or any other book."
Players "What? It is the greatest book ever!"
Players whine and complain for hours and no one gets to game.

Or the worst

DM''The drake looks over at Kongor and snaps it's jaws!"
Player of Kongor "Well, ok, sigh, I attack the drake with my single attack and do nothing else. I sure wish you'd let me play a warblade so I could cast manuvers and do all sorts of cool stuff''
Game drags on with complains and coments every couple of minutes.

Magikeeper

2014-04-20, 09:52 AM

<Best advice in this thread by far.>

Especially as a new DM - it doesn't sound like you could ban enough to bring the opti-fu player into your comfort zone without crippling the game anyway. It's much better to just work with him. Not just go "yes/no" - as you said you aren't familiar enough with the game for that. I'd say more, but Mnemnosyne covered it very well.

---------------

To people suggesting he ban stuff he is unfamiliar with: It sounds like, compared to at least one of his players, he is relatively unfamiliar with everything. No reason to randomly decide he's going to master system X when his players want to use system Y.

-----

Although you should still follow Mnemnosyne's advice IMO, here is a list of potentially problematic stuff off the top of my head:

Books:
Serpent Kingdoms (It does have some nice poison feats and grafts, but it also has a lot of cheesy stuff like the manyfanged dagger)
Player's Handbook has a lot of crazy stuff going on in the spell section.

Items:
> Candle of Invocation (Ridiculously cheap Gate, which is itself an absurdly versatile spell)
> Thought bottle (XP regen tricks.)
> Dust of Sneezing and Choking

> Manyfanged Dagger (x4 damage for.. ~30k?)
> Repeat buff traps

Spells:
> Nearly any transformational spell that doesn't tie you to a single form (Trollshape is fine, polymorph is extremely abusable). Fix Idea: Work with players, tie spells to a single form.
> Ice Assassin/Simulacrum - Too easy to get out of needing the material components, and even if you houserule you can't they can still get rather crazy.
> Celerity line. Personal fix: Have celerity work like the psionic power Anticipatory Strike and then make it impossible for either power to made contingent / used before you take your first action in an encounter (Basically, you can't use it when you would be flatfooted even if you are somehow immune to being flatfooted).
> Love's Pain is silly by RAW. Require mutual attraction or change the effect IMO.
> The psionic power Synchronicity is a part of many silly combos.

Martial Manuvers:
> Iron Heart Surge is very unclear by RAW. Will likely need to be better defined by house rules.

Feats:
> Persistent Spell suffers from being nearly useless unless it is being abused. It is also the cornerstone of many combos - redoing the effect is advisable, both to make it more generally useful and to remove the silly combos.
> I guess Troll blooded granting regen 1 is very strong, but I've never had a problem with player regen.

Classes:
> Planar Shepard PRC.
> Obviously, tier 1-2 classes are... well, tier 1-2 classes.

OldTrees1

2014-04-20, 01:14 PM

<Great advice>
If your players explain their characters to you and explain what they expect to accomplish, then you understand what their characters will be capable of. Furthermore, if they explain they will be able to do things you don't think you can handle...tell them that straight out. As an inexperienced DM, you don't feel you can present a challenge to a character that can do these things...ask them for advice on how to challenge their own characters, or simply ask them to change their plan so their characters don't have the abilities you think you will not be able to make a good game with. It is very important that you not use this to try to shut down their tricks preemptively, though. Just because you know what they can do definitely does not mean you should design the majority of encounters to counteract their strengths. Don't let someone make, say, a character focused on using fear stacking, and then think 'I'll just throw lots and lots of fear-immune enemies at them.' Understand what they can do, take it into account when you design the general strength of encounters they will face, but do not create enemies directly designed to counter them unless those enemies have a logical reason in-character to know the party's strengths and have reason to build in order to counter them.
<More great advice>

I especially liked how you described a non ban solution to game breaking abilities that was better than a ban solution.

Zytil

2014-04-20, 01:22 PM

It is much better to not give a reason.

No reason:
DM "The Tome of Battle is banned."
Players "Why?"
DM "Because ________"
And the game starts and everyone except the fighter who wanted to play a warblade plays and has fun.

A reason:
DM "The Tome of Battle is banned. Giving fighter types renamed spells is a bad idea. The whole book is just one bad idea. Combat takes long enough without all the ''figher spells''. And worse it is a sub system with no balance in Core or any other book."
Players "What? It is the greatest book ever!"
Players whine and complain for hours and no one gets to game.

Or the worst

DM''The drake looks over at Kongor and snaps it's jaws!"
Player of Kongor "Well, ok, sigh, I attack the drake with my single attack and do nothing else. I sure wish you'd let me play a warblade so I could cast manuvers and do all sorts of cool stuff''
Game drags on with complains and coments every couple of minutes.

If your players aren't enjoying the game because you've limited their options i don't think it's fair to say that the best choice is to not give them a reason.
I'm also not entirely sure how not giving them a reason prevents Option 3. If anything it sounds like it would make it more likely.

John Longarrow

2014-04-20, 01:34 PM

Before deciding on books, decide what you want in your world and what fits.
Your worlds sounds like a total wasteland made by excess use of magic sounds like the end result of a war between blighters.

If I was running a game like that, I'd remove all innate spellcasters (Sorcerer/Favored Soul/Warlock) with an in-game justification.
For total wasteland, sounds like the Gods are not providing a lot of magical support (remove divine casters) and the few remaining arcane casters would be really few and far between (need a hell of an in-game reason to take, plus very limited access to spell[read only ones DM wants to add as found loot]).

For myself, I don't use psionics in game, mostly because I don't see the need for extra types of spell casting.

This leaves us with melee and skill centric classes (and you can pick and choose which ones are around).

I'd also have some of the big movers and shakers left in this land having a tight control on the remaining sources of magic (read classes with a spell list at all) and some areas would have specialized classes that can detect magic at will (either any, Divine only, or Arcane only, depending on the area).

This leads to a few problems that you will want to address in game;
1) How do the characters get magic items?
2) Magic healing / return from the dead?
3) Transportation & communication

For a setting like this, there are a lot of monsters that become less useful for the DM because they are either way over or underpowered. Raksasha's would RULE. Unicorns would be amazing. Incorporeal undead all but unstoppable.
I'd also make sure all of the players are on board with this. I'd even talk to them and the previous DM to explain what you are trying for and to see what they can offer up for help. Having left more than one game because its style and what was allowed don't mesh with my preferences, I've learned that making the game fun for EVERYONE (DM included) is vitally important. As such, if you ban everything that makes a player enjoy the game, you do end up removing them from the game (either because they don't enjoy it or they don't participate like normal).

Epsilon Rose

2014-04-20, 02:17 PM

As others have said, Mnemnosyne's advice is rather good. However, there are a few things you might need to account for or ban for thematic/balance reasons. Off the top of my head, the really big things are the spells that create food and water wholesale and rings of sustenance (being in a post-apocalyptic desert sorta loses it's bite if most people don't actually need food and water and you can summon literal tons of the stuff on demand). One way to do this is to ban the effects individualy, with an explicit understanding that any similar effects that weren't listed are still banned. Another good way to go about this is to remove the tier 1-2 classes and possibly replace them with homebrew (which I'm a big fan of) or to use a different, but similar, system that's more balanced.

If you're willing to look at similar systems, I'd point you towards Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). It only has one book and it's free. It's also based on much the same engine as 3.5. The main differences are turn structure works a bit differently, classes are split into three tracks that you can mix and match instead of multi-classing, skills are better, items come as part of leveling up, and ability bonuses come in +2s. Overall it's a lot more balanced and can be more engaging (wizards don't automatically win and fighters aren't consigned to standing still and hitting things or moving and hitting one thing once.

On the homebrew replacement front, I'd suggest looking into Spellshaping (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=845.0) as a replacement for blaster types. It's basically Tome of Battle for magic. The abilities are grouped into circles (which are like disciplines) and are usable per encounter with the ability to refresh them. The upshot of this is that players can use their abilities much more freely, but none of them have the game breaking or far-reaching effects inherent to traditional magic. There are also a ton of base classes, PRCs, feats, and ACFs that provide for nearly any play-style, including some that aren't well supported in vanilla. Fluff-wise, if you don't want to just write your own, spellshaping is meant to be a sort of proto-magic, which might fit in well if more traditional arts are unavailable do to catastrophe and the land/people are over-saturated with magic.

Support, particularly non-hp healing, gets a bit trickier without the T1s. A Truenaming (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?90961-The-Way-Words-Work-(or-Truenaming-that-doesn-t-make-me-cry-myself-to-sleep-at-night)) fix or Tome of Radiance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?258654-Tome-of-Radiance-Mastering-the-Power-of-Love-and-Justice) can provide some help, but they're not as robust as the T1s. Of course, that might be a feature and not a bug. They also provide some very interesting options in their own right (particularly if you ignore/subvert the fluff for Tome of Radiance). It might also be worth considering employing Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) and rituals that are external to class levels and that allow certain important effects in a much more controllable manner.

tyckspoon

2014-04-20, 04:57 PM

If you're willing to look at similar systems, I'd point you towards Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/). It only has one book and it's free. It's also based on much the same engine as 3.5. The main differences are turn structure works a bit differently, classes are split into three tracks that you can mix and match instead of multi-classing, skills are better, items come as part of leveling up, and ability bonuses come in +2s. Overall it's a lot more balanced and can be more engaging (wizards don't automatically win and fighters aren't consigned to standing still and hitting things or moving and hitting one thing once

It would also remove your oldtimers from their comfort zones, make them explore new tricks, and let the other players make most any thing they felt was cool without being suicidally underoptimized. Worth checking out, although changing systems is always a rough sell and changing to one that is unabashedly not Traditional D&D can be even tougher (Legend kind of starts off by slaughtering nearly all of 3.5's sacred gorgons.)

Dimcair

2014-04-21, 09:39 AM

Core.

No seriously, ban core. Not a single one of the classes is properly balanced (All casters are overpowered, all martials are underpowered. Bard only gets to the optimal balance point by having so many books that support him.), has the most open ended and broken spells (simulcrum) and feats are either terrible or amazing.

Only allow magic items that don't cast spells and feats listed as requirements for something.

On this note:

What would be your 8 NEW 'Core' classes?

The worst thing is if you as the DM are completely new to more fancy characters. I personally like sticking to core, cause it has the old-school feeling. Multi-classing is not encouraged either.

If you would pick 8 more or less equally powerful classes, what would they be?

Shining Wrath

2014-04-21, 10:06 AM

Ban anything you don't understand well enough to DM - e.g., if you've never used psionics or watched someone else use psionics, ban it. I'd ban Book of Erotic Fantasy unless you're sure no one at your table would get either juvenile or creepy.

Considering that your world design depends on a world devastated by magic, you might ban the Tier 1 classes. That also reduces roflstomp capabilities.

Duboris

2014-04-21, 10:10 AM

If your players in general just aren't *******s, and are as new as you say they are, I would just ban everything that happened to be third party to avoid some serious confusion. Funny thing about Tier 5-6 is that if they optimize, they're as good as ****ty wizards. To make matters even better, people that honestly want to roleplay as a wizard will select spells that go with a "Theme"

Every "New" wizard I've ever played with went straight Evocation and spammed fire spells and force spells. Other than that they'd be an enchanter, and boy was that fun in the undead crypt.

Fact of the matter is, is that when players start to legitimately roleplay among 4 players, you don't much have to worry about optimization.

Hell if you want to ban everything, just let everyone play fighters and rogues. Completely Axe magic, divinity, and anything like it from the world.

Yawgmoth

2014-04-21, 10:56 AM

It is much better to not give a reason. This is the worst advice you could give anyone about anything. Not giving a reason just makes you look like an arbitrary ass with a desperate need to wield what little power you have like a dire flail. Giving reasons helps people understand decisions made (and thus reduces time spent on arguments and complaining) and also informs your players to avoid similar situations. For example, if you don't like minions, you don't ban summoning without a reason, then ban animate dead without a reason, then ban leadership, etc. because now you just look like you're going to shoot down any concept you personally don't want to play; instead, you say "I'm not allowing uber-summoner because I don't want to deal with a boatload of minions" and now no one wastes their time on similar builds.

Personally, I wouldn't ban anything. I would just sit down with your players and have a character creation session and tell them "look, I want to have the game actually be challenging so build with an aim for T3-4. If you get too powerful too quickly I will ask you to rebuild the bit that is making you too powerful for me to deal with." If your players are decent human beings, this is an easy task.

Fouredged Sword

2014-04-21, 11:35 AM

Here is what I would do, and this is purely to make your game feel more under control and simple to DM.

First - Play E6. The rules are simple, and starting at level 4 you won't even notice. This removes all the really complicated high level play stuff completely and makes the low level stuff feel a lot more epic without running up the power curve.

Second - Any effect that removes the need to drink water doesn't work completely. Instead, it lowers the amount of water you need to drink by 1 gallon a day, or by a fraction once you hit 1 gallon. If you need two gallons of water a day to survive a heat level, then the sustenance power will let you drink 1. A ring of sustenance will then lower that to 1/2 a gallon a day. Another effect that reduces the need to drink will reduce it to 1/3rd a gallon. No magic can create water.

Third - Remove summoning and shapechanging. They are complicated and bog down combat.

Fourth - Optional - Remove divine and arcane casting completely. Play pure psionics, Tome of Battle, Incarnum, and non-magic classes.

Fifth - Optional - Break out the vitality point alternate rules.

Trasilor

2014-04-21, 12:53 PM

Banning:

I generally only ban things which completely invalidate something else with no ability to circumvent. Things like Windwall and Polymorph. And I usually change rather than ban outright.

Generally speaking, spells will be your biggest hurdle. Spells above 4th level are amazing.

Given the flavor of your game, (world destroyed by the ravages of magic), it would be reasonable for none of your players to start with any levels in a full caster (regardless of tier). In fact, such a society may actively seek out and destroy any who show signs of magical casting as it is believed to be the cause of the massive dessert.

You are not outright banning anything - your players can certainly pick up a casting class later on, just not at character creation.

I also agree with other posters to have a character creation session - at level 4 some (perhaps all) of the party members would have adventured in the past together - thus they would build synergistic classes (hopefully).

Regardless, whatever you decide to ban write it down. Nothing is more frustrating than repeating yourself to players who 'forget' that XYZ spells doesn't work the way they think it does.

Metahuman1

2014-04-21, 01:04 PM

Ban the Spell Compendium for Any class that get's 9th level spells. THAT is a good start if you want real balance.

NEVER allow ANYONE to convince you to ban Tome of Battle or Magic Item Compendium.

FullStop

2014-04-21, 01:27 PM

Ban the Spell Compendium for Any class that get's 9th level spells. THAT is a good start if you want real balance.

NEVER allow ANYONE to convince you to ban Tome of Battle or Magic Item Compendium.

I'd contend the damage was already done in the PHB with regard to full casters.

Yawgmoth

2014-04-21, 01:32 PM

Ban the Spell Compendium for Any class that get's 9th level spells. THAT is a good start if you want real balance. You do know that spell compendium is almost all (if not entirely) reprints from other books, right? And that said spells are the errata'd versions, which were almost universally nerfs?

I'm gonna guess no.

Metahuman1

2014-04-21, 01:34 PM

Oh, it was, but no one is gonna want to play a dungeons and dragon's game were you can't have the option of being a wizard.

That said, there is no reason to add a book that gives all the most broken classes hundreds and hundreds of new nice things, and does so mostly exclusively.

The only reason I didn't say Ban it Outright is the Assassin PrC depends on spells to be worth while, Ranger and Paladin tend to Flourish most when they are given open splat access, and the Bard wants all the splat support it can get to hold Tier 3 Status.

Ninja'd!:

Ok, no, I new there were a lot of reprints but I was under the impression there was a fair bit of new material as well based on how it's usually talked about. Still better to Ban it for anyone who get's 9ths, simply because it makes it easier to get rid of the problematic spells afterwords if they have to hunt for them every time there looking for one, as opposed to just having them all in one place for there connivance.

Yawgmoth

2014-04-21, 01:42 PM

The problematic spells are in core, and once again banning spell compendium doesn't ban anything. It's just nice to have all the spells and all the errata in a single book. If your goal is "balance" then my advice would be to find another system. If your goal is to rein in caster, then I would say ban wizard/cleric/druid and make dread necromancer/warmage style classes for the other schools.

jjcrpntr

2014-04-21, 01:43 PM

Ban DM-rulings-challenges from players, if they keep interrupting the game. Such a drag. Dispute rules after the game. When it turns out that you did something wrong, just remember for next time, & handle it differently going forward.

I'm a new DM and this is such good advice. My last game ended in a giant blow up and we're taking a few weeks off for things to calm down. The group isnt splitting up thankfully. We have 1 player that has DM'd a LOT of dnd 3.5 and pathfinder of the years and he metagames the hell out of stuff and constantly tells me how things should and shouldn't happen, how NPC"s should and shouldn't react, and openly argues if something happens that doesn't line up exactly the way he thinks it should.

Case in point, I was introducing one of the big bad guys primary minions. The party ran up on him and he pulled out a scroll to open a gateway to escape. This was a homebrewed thing I had made up. It had no bearing on the game other than to switch locations and add some flavor. This player, who is playing a rogue, demanded that I stop the game and explain to him how this thing worked. Having players that argue stuff mid game is a pain and can really lead to a lot of frustration.

Windstorm

2014-04-21, 01:55 PM

A few things from experience:

Don't blanket ban anything outright, you are not a game designer balancing for a wide audience, talk with your players and if they want to do something that is unfamiliar to you, either work with them so you can grasp the basics of the unfamiliar subsystem, or ask them nicely to please play something you're more familiar with
If people start to metagame monster encounters "it can't do that!" if its an honest mistake on your part (they happen) fix it and move on, if its a custom monster adjustment, ask them how their character knows that. if knowledges come into play, comment that it has X unusual feature for a creature of its type
make a general point to handle rulings disputes after the game, however if you have a player who is willing to help you and has good system mastery it can be handy to have them look up the relevant rules passages if it doesn't interfere with play, so that the discussion post-game goes much more smoothly
ultimately D&D is about the DM and the players working together to have fun and tell a story, treat it with that attitude and you get awesome results. it's NOT a legal adversarial system.

EDIT: a couple of additions for your specific case. one thing you must do is communicate well what you intend the theme of the campaign to be, and ask your players to work with you to keep that intact. not banning but restricting create food and water, heroes feast, etc or adjusting the spell levels higher to keep to the theme is something you can discuss with your players, but don't unilaterally do it without discussion.

on the subject of bans and balancing, I ranted about it a while ago in a different thread. link here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?340180-Creating-a-character-for-the-world-s-pickiest-DM&p=17273945&viewfull=1#post17273945) if you're interested.

Andezzar

2014-04-21, 02:14 PM

Case in point, I was introducing one of the big bad guys primary minions. The party ran up on him and he pulled out a scroll to open a gateway to escape. This was a homebrewed thing I had made up. It had no bearing on the game other than to switch locations and add some flavor. This player, who is playing a rogue, demanded that I stop the game and explain to him how this thing worked. Having players that argue stuff mid game is a pain and can really lead to a lot of frustration.I have to side with player. If a character that appears to be a threat the PCs should be allowed to deal with him. If the villain appears gives his speech and then disappears by reading a scroll the rogue (and any other character) should be able to attempt to stop him at any point before the spell is cast.

A few things from experience:

Don't blanket ban anything outright, you are not a game designer balancing for a wide audience, talk with your players and if they want to do something that is unfamiliar to you, either work with them so you can grasp the basics of the unfamiliar subsystem, or ask them nicely to please play something you're more familiar with
If people start to metagame monster encounters "it can't do that!" if its an honest mistake on your part (they happen) fix it and move on, if its a custom monster adjustment, ask them how their character knows that. if knowledges come into play, comment that it has X unusual feature for a creature of its type
make a general point to handle rulings disputes after the game, however if you have a player who is willing to help you and has good system mastery it can be handy to have them look up the relevant rules passages if it doesn't interfere with play, so that the discussion post-game goes much more smoothly
ultimately D&D is about the DM and the players working together to have fun and tell a story, treat it with that attitude and you get awesome results. it's NOT a legal adversarial system.
QFT that is very good advice, especially the last point.

Windstorm

2014-04-21, 02:23 PM

Chronos

2014-04-21, 02:50 PM

Most of the Spell Compendium is reprints from other sources, but many of those original sources are adventure modules, campaign-specific, or otherwise very obscure works, which are probably de facto banned in your group simply by virtue of nobody having (or possibly, having heard of) them.

jjcrpntr

2014-04-21, 03:56 PM

I have to side with player. If a character that appears to be a threat the PCs should be allowed to deal with him. If the villain appears gives his speech and then disappears by reading a scroll the rogue (and any other character) should be able to attempt to stop him at any point before the spell is cast.

QFT that is very good advice, especially the last point.

I see your point but basically the spell created a doorway that the minion stepped through, the PC's followed through after.

Now a large part of the frustration with this situation stems from HOW the player questioned it. I have a guy that will say "wait.. im' confused I didn't think that's how X worked" where as the other guy just says "no you can't do that, it's not how X works". To me that's a big difference in how things are handled. A rogue would have no idea, he saw the dude use a scroll then step through a doorway. Also the minion never made any movement to attack the PC's he saw them and immediately started to try and leave. He used the scroll and stepped through on his next turn, they had a chance to stop him but didn't.

I guess my stance is that as a rogue unless there's a fireball flying at his face he'd have no idea what the spell was. To angrily, and rudely, interrupt the game and demand out of character information rather than waiting to see if the wizard could identify it via a spellcraft check is the wrong way to handle a question.

Peelee

2014-04-21, 04:03 PM

Most important thing I learned after my first few attempts at DMing - ban anything you're not familiar with. If a player wants something on the banned list added in, tell them to let you know what they want so you can look at it and get familiar with it. Everything else is secondary to you knowing how the crap some things work.

Andezzar

2014-04-21, 04:05 PM

Now a large part of the frustration with this situation stems from HOW the player questioned it. I have a guy that will say "wait.. im' confused I didn't think that's how X worked" where as the other guy just says "no you can't do that, it's not how X works". To me that's a big difference in how things are handled. A rogue would have no idea, he saw the dude use a scroll then step through a doorway. Also the minion never made any movement to attack the PC's he saw them and immediately started to try and leave. He used the scroll and stepped through on his next turn, they had a chance to stop him but didn't. Hmm, that sounds a lot like Gate and not Dimension Door. The former will be a pretty dire omen for the rules savvy player. In a recently formed group, I can understand that he starts asking questions.

I guess my stance is that as a rogue unless there's a fireball flying at his face he'd have no idea what the spell was. To angrily, and rudely, interrupt the game and demand out of character information rather than waiting to see if the wizard could identify it via a spellcraft check is the wrong way to handle a question.I agree, such questions are for after the game or at least for after the scene.

Taelas

2014-04-21, 04:05 PM

Don't ban something because someone on the Internet told you to. Read through what you think you can handle, and allow that. Then ask your friends if they have preferences for stuff you haven't approved. If you think their wishes are doable, allow them as well.

Don't bite over more than you can chew. You can always add more stuff later, and if you try something new and it doesn't work for your group, you can always remove it again.

That said, you don't need to know the material intimately to try it out. I prefer opting for inclusion unless I feel it would be a problem.

You need to find your own balance of what works for you and your group.