Banning setting-specific books

[Kazyan]

I'm considering disallowing all setting specific material for the next roll20 campaign that I run, in addition to other possible spot-bans.

Firstly, there's all the fluff attached to most setting-specific stuff, and I don't like when my players just ignore it, especially when the mechanics otherwise need some sort of explanation. Attempting to limit options by "only if it's not fluff-ingrained" doesn't work--give players an inch, and they take a mile. Secondly, there are tons of unusually powerful options that come from setting-specific books--I haven't done any rigorous math, but it seems there's a higher density of overpoweredness in setting-specific books than in the non-setting specific books (Player's Handbook excluded). Thirdly, I'm not aware of any character concept that needs setting-specific book options for basic competence, with the possible exception of a crafter wanting to be an artificer--and in that case, artificer is unacceptably powerful anyway.

I'm aware that banning books doesn't necessarily fix 3.5's problems, but this seems like an improvement. Yes, yes, it doesn't fix everything, people can still break the game with core-only, blah blah blah--please check the Nirvana Fallacy at the door, thanks. I'm trying to improve balance, and am under no illusions that this is a perfect fix.

Am I onto something, or just trying to play the game wrong?

[WeaselGuy]

Personally, I only ban setting specific books if I'm playing in a setting. i.e., no Forgotten Realms in my Eberron campaign. If it's a sandbox or a unique campaign, i.e. one I've created, then I allow setting specific, but if a player chooses something, such as Red Wizard of Thay or Aglarondan Griffonrider, then they are locked into that region, and can't pick something from a different region or campaign setting. Just my 2 cents.

Also, in most cases, the majority of the setting specific stuff usually either applies towards martial characters, or makes your caster particularly specialized in some fashion, which I've found limits them a little bit, instead of making them ridiculously overpowered.

[CyberThread]

Personally, I only ban setting specific books if I'm playing in a setting. i.e., no Forgotten Realms in my Eberron campaign. If it's a sandbox or a unique campaign, i.e. one I've created, then I allow setting specific, but if a player chooses something, such as Red Wizard of Thay or Aglarondan Griffonrider, then they are locked into that region, and can't pick something from a different region or campaign setting. Just my 2 cents.

Also, in most cases, the majority of the setting specific stuff usually either applies towards martial characters, or makes your caster particularly specialized in some fashion, which I've found limits them a little bit, instead of making them ridiculously overpowered.



Most of those setting specific books, are what make tier 5 classes become tier 4 and allow a fighter to do something intresting.

[Kazyan]

Most of those setting specific books, are what make tier 5 classes become tier 4 and allow a fighter to do something intresting.

I'm not aware of any setting option that raises a tier like that on its own, fighters are useless outside of a few specialized builds--I'm not aware of any setting-specific stuff being involved there; Jack B. Quick and Shock Trooper+Leap Attack+Pounce aren't setting-specific--and playing a fighter when warblades exist is tantamount to heresy these days anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Mechanically, I think you're probably fine. You'll lose some good stuff (Zhentinim Fighter and Sword of the Arcane Order are the first things to spring to mind), some broken stuff (Incantrix, Artificer), and a whole lot of mediocre book-filler. Overall game balance will remain unchanged.

Socially, it's a perfectly reasonable, perhaps even commonplace ban.

Personally... well, my opinion is that the only fluff that matters is that which we write ourselves. Perhaps because of that, it bugs me when certain tricks are limited to certain groups or settings-- especially when those tricks are as generic as "scarier warrior" or "magic item craftsman." But it's hardly a breaking point.

[VoxRationis]

Let's not get into fighters and warblades here. That's not the point, and I'll just end up arguing for an absurd length of time with someone.
I'd ban any setting-specific content I wasn't using, unless I as a DM liked a particular mechanic so much I thought it needed adding. I'm not using the maps, history, and NPCs in there; those things are resources intended for that setting. Similarly, the feats, prestige classes, and spells found in a setting sourcebook are resources intended for that setting, and are inappropriate outside of it. A pilum is a neat item, to use a real-world example, but it would be inappropriate to use it in an Aztec flower war.

[Vhaidara]

Zhentarim Fighter is Forgotten Realms specific and can help bring Fighter to T4 through Intimidate.

I would say setting specific things are reasonable to ban (anything with a location/organization name), but otherwise I would leave them open. Although, I'm biased since I love Warforged, changelings, and shifters, which aren't entirely setting specific (thank you MM3), but a lot of their support is in setting specific books.

[Turion]

I'm not aware of any setting option that raises a tier like that on its own, fighters are useless outside of a few specialized builds--I'm not aware of any setting-specific stuff being involved there; Jack B. Quick and Shock Trooper+Leap Attack+Pounce aren't setting-specific--and playing a fighter when warblades exist is tantamount to heresy these days anyway.

Forgotten Realms has the Zhentarim fighter sub levels, as well as Sword of the Arcane Order and all the really nice Paladin and Ranger sub levels and spells in Champions of Valor.

Also, Eberron has some nifty abilities for Bards, and a fire-based blaster prc that's not half bad.

Aside from that, yeah. Not something I'd personally do myself, since I don't like limiting options (although Serpent Kingdoms is on my ban list, because seriously), but it probably won't hurt too much.

[Phelix-Mu]

Book bans are a time-honored tool in the toolbox of the DM. In limiting or not limiting access to content, you set up some parameters to the basic tools the player has access to, but as mentioned, most general concepts can be executed in n different ways in 3e, so the loss of setting-specific books won't impact much overall.

This is especially true if, as DM, you are flexible with what stuff you do allow to the players as tools. For instance, perhaps Aglarondan Griffonrider thingy (if that is even what it is called...my Exalted headcanon daily bulldozes the slums of my D&D headcanon) is off the table, due to being setting-specific. But, if one of the players really wants to ride a griffon, then I as DM can make some allowances to make that vision a possibility (short of filing the serial numbers off of that PrC, ofc). In this case, there really is no drawback, as all that is lost is broken mechanics (see Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, etc) and not access to certain flavors of fluff.

[Kazyan]

Fair point on Zhentarim, SotAO, and...hmm, maybe Champions of Valor should be the exception? It has all the nice things for low-tier classes, it seems.


Personally... well, my opinion is that the only fluff that matters is that which we write ourselves. Perhaps because of that, it bugs me when certain tricks are limited to certain groups or settings-- especially when those tricks are as generic as "scarier warrior" or "magic item craftsman." But it's hardly a breaking point.

I agree, provided that the fluff you make actually matches your mechanics--fluff and mechanics are linked, and if there's a disconnect, the whole thing seems artifical. I find that, sometimes, a mechanical option reinforces fluff and vice versa, so I expect some sort of explanation as to why, for example, a gestalt counterspelling build with Cold Iron Warrior can detect fey when the player has de-fluffed it into "class what gives me dispel bonus". That particular PrC is not setting-specific, but you get the idea. And I find that my players are awful at that. Since setting-specific stuff is naturally the biggest concentration of mechanical fluff-based artifacts, well...

[Grod_The_Giant]

I agree, provided that the fluff you make actually matches your mechanics--fluff and mechanics are linked, and if there's a disconnect, the whole thing seems artifical. I find that, sometimes, a mechanical option reinforces fluff and vice versa, so I expect some sort of explanation as to why, for example, a gestalt counterspelling build with Cold Iron Warrior can detect fey when the player has de-fluffed it into "class what gives me dispel bonus". That particular PrC is not setting-specific, but you get the idea. And I find that my players are awful at that. Since setting-specific stuff is naturally the biggest concentration of mechanical fluff-based artifacts, well...
Ehh, fair point. I don't know if the final bit is true, though... all of the setting-specific fluff I've seen has felt pretty artificial.

Better question, perhaps: What are you trying to achieve with the ban?

[Kazyan]

Better question, perhaps: What are you trying to achieve with the ban?

Rein in optimization--the current OP-level of my group is outstripping my ability to challenge them. See my "drawing a blank" thread for a description of the party. Even if this doesn't fix everything, it should at least give the players I've lined up for the second campaign a hint. If they can't take said hint and still try to overoptimize, they'd probably do so no matter what I banned anyway.

Also, I'm trying to make my own campaign setting distinct.

[Phelix-Mu]

If the party is overoptimizing, I encourage you to either do more targetted banning/and/or address the issue player-by-player out-of-game, or to institute some broad and basic alterations to your side of the table to counteract the most defining problems with how they optimize.

Not sure a book-by-book ban is the approach to take if you are just trying to send a message. Might be easier to address the matter directly (and less prone to being misinterpreted).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Rein in optimization--the current OP-level of my group is outstripping my ability to challenge them. See my "drawing a blank" thread for a description of the party. Even if this doesn't fix everything, it should at least give the players I've lined up for the second campaign a hint. If they can't take said hint and still try to overoptimize, they'd probably do so no matter what I banned anyway.
Mmm. Like I said, I don't think this ban in particular is going to do anything about optimization. (For that matter, I don't think blanket book bans ever really help that side of things.) If you're concerned about your players overoptimizing, best to directly ask them to rein it in.


Also, I'm trying to make my own campaign setting distinct.
Ah. That's a good reason. Though might I suggest positive, rather than negative changes? Making obscure or homebrew material a major element will probably have a larger effect than removing some third-tier material from other settings.

[Kazyan]

I've already spoken to the party, in fact. They've realized that they went too far and entered an arms race, but we're two encounters from the end of our current campaign, so we're just going to play like this for a little longer. One of the issues with the classic "talk to your players" advice for me is that I'm a pushover, so I have to institute some ground rules--such as "no setting-specific material". Trying to adjudicate things on a case-by-case basis will end up with people running roughshod over the campaign setting, because I have a hard time saying "no".

I do plan to make positive changes, though--I'm introducing a few templates and regional feats. Not sure what to do beyond that, but that's a discussion for Homebrew Design.

[Phelix-Mu]

When my players' characters are getting stronger, I usually just crank up the enemies. 36-point buy mooks, Vecna-blooded everything, diviners playing for the opposing team, ignore WBL/npc gear tables for enemy consumables, etc, etc. A DM's toolbox is always bigger than that of the players. But I understand where this all gets to be a big headache if the arms race continues; the player only needs to optimize one thing, while the DM has to optimize an entire world to keep up the challenge level.

[Kazyan]

When my players' characters are getting stronger, I usually just crank up the enemies. 36-point buy mooks, Vecna-blooded everything, diviners playing for the opposing team, ignore WBL/npc gear tables for enemy consumables, etc, etc. A DM's toolbox is always bigger than that of the players. But I understand where this all gets to be a big headache if the arms race continues; the player only needs to optimize one thing, while the DM has to optimize an entire world to keep up the challenge level.

"Just make the enemies tougher" is not as simple as it sounds when it's your first campaign. There are a lot of variables to account for, and making things too hard is a recipe for TPK. Call me an idiot if you must, but I legitimately do not know how to fight high-optimization characters. The current PCs are fairly-north-of-mid-OP right now.

Example: Two sessions ago, when the PCs were level 18 (or 19, I don't remember), they fought a Winterwight with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting, Distant Shot, and a bunch of ice daggers, alongside three Thorciasids with Power Attack and Travel Devotion. These are monsters from the Epic Level Handbook. I thought I was clever by giving the thorciasids a flight method...then two of them got Forcaged by a Gated-in Concordant Killer. The Winterwight got Forcecaged as well, but when it used its Dimension Door, it happened to be within charge radius of the ubercharger. Forcecage had never solved an encounter like that before, but suddenly it did.

[Phelix-Mu]

Kind of surprised it took that long for forcecage to be a game-changer. It's a seriously awesome spell. But I feel your pain. I myself haven't DM'd much for high-op, but I do know how to nearly kill player characters. It's really my defining skill as DM. That and Storm of Thousand NPCs no Jutsu. And plots that are way, way too complicated to ever be completely unraveled.

:smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've already spoken to the party, in fact. They've realized that they went too far and entered an arms race, but we're two encounters from the end of our current campaign, so we're just going to play like this for a little longer. One of the issues with the classic "talk to your players" advice for me is that I'm a pushover, so I have to institute some ground rules--such as "no setting-specific material". Trying to adjudicate things on a case-by-case basis will end up with people running roughshod over the campaign setting, because I have a hard time saying "no".

I do plan to make positive changes, though--I'm introducing a few templates and regional feats. Not sure what to do beyond that, but that's a discussion for Homebrew Design.
Mmm. Well, if they know it's a problem, that's a good sign.

Perhaps a more specific ban/nerf list would be better than blanket book bans? For example:

Wizards, Clerics, and Artificers are banned.
Druids must use the Shapeshift and <the other PHB 2 one that changes spontaneous SNA for fast healing> ACFs.
Shock Trooper is not allowed.

[Giddonihah]

You can ban all the setting specific books if you want to, just dont expect it to actually effect player powerlevels. And dont bother with exceptions unless a player specifically requests something for an under-performing character.

As for reigning in power level.. welp good luck with that. Perhaps the best thing you could do is try to conivnce the best optimizers to play non mages, and let the poorer optimizers in the group play mages. Or hope that they can keep themselves more restrained in the future to avoid escalation :smallsigh:.

[Kazyan]

Those example bans work. I'd prefer not to be so heavy-handed about Tier 1 because it does cut out some concepts. It still has the problem of unrestrained optimizers still finding ways to break the game, too. Instead, I've developed a rule of thumb: if a player who wants to play a caster has ambitious goals such as immortality, radically altering the campaign setting, or achieving godhood, don't let them play a caster.

[Graypairofsocks]

Instead, I've developed a rule of thumb: if a player who wants to play a caster has ambitious goals such as immortality, radically altering the campaign setting, or achieving godhood, don't let them play a caster.

Note that some of the things that immortality(eternal life type, not the can't be killed type) actually reduce the power of the player (Green Star Adept (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105a) for example) or don't really change the power at all(Unless you are up against a lot of aging attack monsters).

And even some methods of can't be killed immortality have some important downsides.

For example the Lich template has +4 LA, and One will most likely have to buy off the LA in someway.

[BWR]

You are perfectly within your right as DM to ban whatever source you want, for whatever reason you want.
Banning things because you haven't had a chance to look at them and consider all the implications of them: perfectly fine.
Banning things because they don't fit the fluff of your game: excellent.
Banning things because you feel there is a bit too much stuff for you to comfortably handle: no problem.
Banning things because they are a bit too powerful for your game, even if things you've already permitted have the potential to be more powerful: ok.
Banning stuff because you simply don't like it: sure.
Banning stuff because you are mistaken about how it works and how it compares with stuff you have OKed: not so good.

Just try to announce what you will permit as soon as possible and before the character sees play. Sometimes you have to make changes during a game, but they are almost always far more annoying for the player than just having something banned before they get started.

[Andezzar]

Is there even non setting specific content? All those books that are not attached to one of the other named settings (Forgotten Realms, Eberron) are for the default setting Greyhawk.

[Vaz]

Every class is a bag of mechanics wrapped in some poorly written fluff by a company piggy backing off a well known name to generate sales.

If Incantatrix was in a non setting specific book called 'generic arcane metamagic user' you wouldn't have a problem with it.

If it was in a Rokugan book and called 'Sensei of the Bountiful spring' or whatever, you wouldn't have a problem with it in Rokugan.

The mechanics are independent of fluff.

If you want to limit it, you could introduce an RP element, such as in Rokugan, Arcane magic is frowned on, so you'd have to locate the Bloodspeaker sect of the Bountiful Spring and become friendly enough with them so that they will teach you.

At the end of the day, charscters don't feel in their head 'dingdingding level up' and then decide 'oh i'm now going to become an incantatrix' unless such distinction is made in the setting, whether it be an order of knights, theives guild or sorcerers coven. It simply happens for some. The dmg iirc makes specific mention of fluff based prerequisites for prc if you prefer.

I find it more acceptable as a player and dm to ban specific content. Usually if someone tries to break it, something far more powerful and intelligent has done the same thing earlier. Or as a particularly unique pet, some Wizard teleports in, captures you then takes you to his tower as an experiment.

[BWR]

Every class is a bag of mechanics wrapped in some poorly written fluff by a company piggy backing off a well known name to generate sales.

If Incantatrix was in a non setting specific book called 'generic arcane metamagic user' you wouldn't have a problem with it.

If it was in a Rokugan book and called 'Sensei of the Bountiful spring' or whatever, you wouldn't have a problem with it in Rokugan.

The mechanics are independent of fluff.
.

Some mechanics are more generic than others. I have a very hard time seeing how something like the Artificer could be made to work in Rokugan. It's mechanics are based off making items in a way that is just foreign to the setting. Things like Soulknives or Dragonfire adepts, Eldritch Knights, Arcane Archers etc. etc. etc. just don't fit in the setting however you fluff them. Heck, the d20 shugenja isn't really a good adaptation of the Rokugani shugenja.

[Pluto!]

GitP as a forum has its own sets of assumptions on certain things which I've not seen once in real life play groups, and this is one of them. I don't know if I've played with a group that hasn't limited setting-specific sourcebooks, often along with races and classes that the GM doesn't want to exist in their setting due to flavor, often including the OA classes and Monk.

That said, don't expect it to do a thing for balance. With or without setting guides, the game is broken in the same ways and to about the same degree.

[Vogonjeltz]

"Just make the enemies tougher" is not as simple as it sounds when it's your first campaign. There are a lot of variables to account for, and making things too hard is a recipe for TPK. Call me an idiot if you must, but I legitimately do not know how to fight high-optimization characters. The current PCs are fairly-north-of-mid-OP right now.

Example: Two sessions ago, when the PCs were level 18 (or 19, I don't remember), they fought a Winterwight with Perfect Two Weapon Fighting, Distant Shot, and a bunch of ice daggers, alongside three Thorciasids with Power Attack and Travel Devotion. These are monsters from the Epic Level Handbook. I thought I was clever by giving the thorciasids a flight method...then two of them got Forcaged by a Gated-in Concordant Killer. The Winterwight got Forcecaged as well, but when it used its Dimension Door, it happened to be within charge radius of the ubercharger. Forcecage had never solved an encounter like that before, but suddenly it did.

It sounds like your players are casters, at least one of which is a summoner. Here's how you challenge them: opposing casters with dispel magic.

Have them fight an evil Cleric whose demense is layered with unhallows, desecrations, and forbiddances, that prevents all summoning spells outright. His undead will be tougher. Then liberal uses of dispel to remove pesky force cages and the like. Ruby Ray of reversal and disintegrate are some other great ways to counter spell effects like the force cage that might otherwise neutralize a melee enemy.

[Larkas]

Banning setting books outright, while not my favorite kind of ban (as a DM, I can always repurpose stuff), is fine and well within your rights. Don't expect it to do a thing for balance though. That can only be affected by non-blanket bans, which admittedly can be much harder to make and balance and a lot more work than most people are willing to spend on that.

If you want to try it anyways, consider which spells can exist in your world. Let's take 9th level wizard spells for our example: meteor swarm seems like a fine spell for the level, but gate, wish and time stop might not be. Do the exist? If they do, are they tweaked in any way? Comb the full-casters' spell list from 9th to 0 level and make the changes you deem appropriate. Ban any non-core spells if you feel overwhelmed, but keep in mind that the worst offenders (or at least most of them) are in core itself. You'll find that the most broken spells are in levels 7-9, but don't succumb to the temptation of blanket-banning those (remember? Meteor swarm is a fine spell!). And try to not overdo it: Forcecage can be an encounter ender sometimes, but not always - unlike gate or shapechange. Is it really broken enough to be banned? That's up to you to decide. Once you've done that, you might want to tweak the classes themselves: maybe clerics have to keep a prayerbook with any spells they want to prepare, and maybe the druid swaps with the ranger his animal companion progression. It's your call what to do, really.

Myself, I use the inverse approach: only assume something exists if you've asked me about it, even if it's in core. I'm actually very lenient, but that way I have a tighter control on the group's power level.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Those example bans work. I'd prefer not to be so heavy-handed about Tier 1 because it does cut out some concepts. It still has the problem of unrestrained optimizers still finding ways to break the game, too. Instead, I've developed a rule of thumb: if a player who wants to play a caster has ambitious goals such as immortality, radically altering the campaign setting, or achieving godhood, don't let them play a caster.
Ultimately, you can't stop unrestrained optimizers. There are people who can find a way to break the game with one class, two feats, and a rusty paper clip. The only surefire way is to trust your players.

Though if you're concerned, you can always look for class fixes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?236469-Commonly-Corrected-Classes-Compendium).