Ban list

[maniacalmojo]

Looking to compile a list of spells to wipe from the game as many people in the playground have much more experience using the wide list of spells from different splat books then i.

I was looking to ban spells that
-Break the action economy
-Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed (find traps and knock for instance)
-Are imbalanced for their level
-provide too much cheese
-Are too powerful
-Need a longer casting time
-bypass all defenses
-Can be easily exploited

Looking just for a list of spells that you think would be better left out not really a link to a fix for spellcasters or anything. If there is any additional input on why that would be great as well.

[bjoern]

Looking to compile a list of spells to wipe from the game as many people in the playground have much more experience using the wide list of spells from different splat books then i.

I was looking to ban spells that
-Break the action economy
-Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed (find traps and knock for instance)
-Are imbalanced for their level
-provide too much cheese
-Are too powerful
-Need a longer casting time
-bypass all defenses
-Can be easily exploited

Looking just for a list of spells that you think would be better left out not really a link to a fix for spellcasters or anything. If there is any additional input on why that would be great as well.

The problem with blanket bans like this is just saying "I ban anything that isn't average" makes spellcasters useless.

A much easier method is taking things on a case by case basis.

Infinite loops= nothing happens at all.

Infinity-1 loops= nothing happens at all.

As far as polymorph school goes, require a knowledge check to see if the character is even aware that the monster exists.

Gate abuse. Use old 1st and 2nd edition shenanigans.

Gates in a solar
I command you to use wish and grant me a staff of gate.

Sighs....annoying mortals

OK here's your staff of gate......along with its ancient wyrm prysmayic dragon owner.



To this day, whenever an NPC offers us a wish we all cover our mouths, eyes , and ears and run far away.

[Giddonihah]

The problem with blanket bans like this is just saying "I ban anything that isn't average" makes spellcasters useless.


:smallconfused: Are you saying that casters don't have any spells that aren't amazing or that casters without their broken stuff somehow suck? Either one makes me chuckle, but I suppose you mean the latter :smallsigh:.

[maniacalmojo]

I still see a lot of advantage of playing wizards without relying on the spells that break the game. Debuffs, AOE and utility spells are all super helpful but some are just not really needed and mostly there for abuse.

[DonKalypso]

I still see a lot of advantage of playing wizards without relying on the spells that break the game. Debuffs, AOE and utility spells are all super helpful but some are just not really needed and mostly there for abuse.

The issue I can see with your "Ban list" is that, with the right amount of lateral thinking, just about any class can be made useless by a spellcaster.

So it might just be better to ban PC spellcasters all together.

[Tvtyrant]

I would axe the entire celerity and polymorph lines, along with Simulacrum-ice assassin-shadow. Replace the planar binding line with planar ally and burn gate and genesis. Still OP but much less do.

[Werephilosopher]

:smallconfused: Are you saying that casters don't have any spells that aren't amazing or that casters without their broken stuff somehow suck? Either one makes me chuckle, but I suppose you mean the latter :smallsigh:.

If you leave casters with only mediocre spells, they do somewhat suck. :smalltongue:


I still see a lot of advantage of playing wizards without relying on the spells that break the game. Debuffs, AOE and utility spells are all super helpful but some are just not really needed and mostly there for abuse.

How are you determining which spells are "not really needed"? No other spell of equal or lower level really replicates solid fog, but such a spell is also beyond the ability of noncasters to replicate and is powerful regardless. But if you say "well this isn't something noncasters can do" then, well, yeah, that's why you have casters that can do it.

[KorbeltheReader]

This sounds like a Herculean task to me. You're talking about sifting through hundreds of spells to analyze their compliance with 8 separate criteria, some of which are pretty subjective (what defines "too powerful" for instance?). If keeping out all spells like this is a big deal to you, I'd suggest working it from the other direction: demand that casters clear every spell with you before taking it the first time.

In my game, rather than going through this, we have an understanding that a) spell cheese dampens the fun for everyone else, so don't be a jerk, b) sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Once they use a spell or mechanic or tactic, it's fair game for the bad guys to pick up.

[bjoern]

Break the action economy

-Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed (find traps and knock for instance)
-Are imbalanced for their level
-provide too much cheese
-Are too powerful
-Need a longer casting time
-bypass all defenses
-Can be easily exploited

Let's look at what this does here.....only 1 spell per turn while everyone else gets multiple attacks (isn't too bad but make that spell count)

No spell is allowed now that gives an alternative to a class feature. No invisibility, no spell that gives any kind of skill bonus, no divination at all (gathering info is the rogues job) the list goes on and on. Damage spells.....that reduces melee classes usefulness.

Imbalanced for their level. What exactly does that mean? To be balanced an enemy must be able to defeat it 1/2 the time. If that's the case a wizard dies in one out of every two battles.


Too powerful..... kind of vague. Too effective, not junk. Pretty subjective.

Need a longer casting time. Are you suggesting this as a fix for powerful spells?

Bypass all defense. I get this one. There aren't many spells that bypass every defense, there is usually some way to defeat it. Not that you happen to have that way handy. Lots of spells that bypass multiple defenses. If there is a spell that says "upon resolving you win" then yeah ban it. But I don't think there are any.

Easily exploited. DMs discretion invoked here to keep things in line.
Contingency comes to mind. Just make the trigger be something believable. Not just
"When I want to trigger this effect OOC it triggers"

Common sense and DM discretion go a longway when it comes to balancing things out.

Plus, if you ban a bunch of stuff the only rreason a player would play a caster would be to find something you missed and try to break it. Thus making it banned in the next game.

[Giddonihah]

Some common low level spells that are too powerful (and way overused).
Color spray: aoe save or suck, eventually obsoletes but its significantly more powerful than your other choices at level.
Web: Obnoxious aoe, encounter ender that even if they make the save they are still trapped in the middle of the web and have to make str checks to move.
Grease: Its base use is very powerful, and it can even be used to disarm at will. Powerful low level aoe.

Ignoring Defense spells
Magic Missile line, they are classic but they are big offenders at outright ignoring most defenses.
Orb of X lines, dumb spells that shouldn't exist, they bypass SR and Antimagic cause conjuration has to be better than evocation.

Any of the general polymorph line should be banned, however consider keeping the specific form polymorph spells, their limits make them relatively less broken.

[Fax Celestis]

My personal banlist.


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


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

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

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

It's a little heavy-handed but it pretty succinctly cuts off 90% of the cheese in the game.

[Milodiah]

I've opened locked door by using Polymorph Any Object to make them squids. Does that mean Polymorph Any Object breaks the action economy and needs to be banned because you can use it creatively solve problems?

[Milodiah]

My personal banlist.



It's a little heavy-handed but it pretty succinctly cuts off 90% of the cheese in the game.


Also, I'll admit that when I originally saw you post this list, I thought it was three times more heavy-handed than it needed to be (banning all the Core arcane casters? Pfft), but now that I see what people actually want to do with their bans it's much more tolerable to me. Sure, it is heavy-handed, but you know what? It's also fair. You're not setting up prerequisites like "spell can't have too much cheese" or "be too OP" as a universal requirement, and of course most everyone's going to disagree with a lot of DM calls that are 100% subjective like that. Especially if you were to be making them as you go, which just gets me far more than saying "yeah, no arcane core casters". I probably wouldn't be happy in your games, sure, but that's not an insult, that's just a difference of opinion, and if I did play with you long enough I feel like I'd get over it and decide you were right. After all, of the 5 main characters I play as, you aren't banning any of them, so even if I argued I'd be arguing for the sake of things.

[bjoern]

I've opened locked door by using Polymorph Any Object to make them squids. Does that mean Polymorph Any Object breaks the action economy and needs to be banned because you can use it creatively solve problems?
Yes, it circumvents the rogues use fullness


Having great power means great responsibility........cliche but true.

Having the ability to celerity, time stop, and blow up the world is fine.

Using it is not.

My current campaign my character has several aces up his sleeve to more or less auto win the encounter. But I doubt that I'll ever use them unless the party is on the verge being wiped out.
Keep in mind that this situation won't work with a munchkin with the mentality of "let's beat the DM at his own game.....and he's GOD"

Our DM doesn't pad rolls to keep us alive. If you die, then you die. But, he doesn't want you to die either its not DM vs party. If you can escape a TPK by breaking the game it's all good. If you exploit the ability to break the game by going after CR 90 enemies and power leveling, then that's a problem.

Here is how i play a caster

1. Keep things moving forward, if you're needed to solve a problem. Solve it

2. If $%&# hits the fan and everyone is gonna die, pull off the kid gloves and get them out of there

3. Everyone has fun. Dominate the game by boosting the party with haste etc. And hosing the enemies to keep your party members alive.

[Milodiah]

Yes, it circumvents the rogues use fullness


Having great power means great responsibility........cliche but true.

Having the ability to celerity, time stop, and blow up the world is fine.

Using it is not.

My current campaign my character has several aces up his sleeve to more or less auto win the encounter. But I doubt that I'll ever use them unless the party is on the verge being wiped out.
Keep in mind that this situation won't work with a munchkin with the mentality of "let's beat the DM at his own game.....and he's GOD"

Our DM doesn't pad rolls to keep us alive. If you die, then you die. But, he doesn't want you to die either its not DM vs party. If you can escape a TPK by breaking the game it's all good. If you exploit the ability to break the game by going after CR 90 enemies and power leveling, then that's a problem.

Here is how i play a caster

1. Keep things moving forward, if you're needed to solve a problem. Solve it

2. If $%&# hits the fan and everyone is gonna die, pull off the kid gloves and get them out of there

3. Everyone has fun. Dominate the game by boosting the party with haste etc. And hosing the enemies to keep your party members alive.



...I've used mage armor for its primary purpose, which is to deal with the fact that wizards don't get armor by giving them respectable amounts of armor, is that breaking the action economy?

[bjoern]

...I've used mage armor for its primary purpose, which is to deal with the fact that wizards don't get armor by giving them respectable amounts of armor, is that breaking the action economy?

It circumvents WBL which limits what other classes can have for gear. Giving you another several hundered GP to spend.
Unfair, broken.

BANNED

lol

[Giddonihah]

I've opened locked door by using Polymorph Any Object to make them squids. Does that mean Polymorph Any Object breaks the action economy and needs to be banned because you can use it creatively solve problems?

Actually it needs to be banned because its an extremely powerful spell with a billion uses, not because of any action economy problems. And its only 'creatively solve problems' in the fashion that you can solve a puzzle in scribblenaughts, the spell is solving the problem, it doesn't matter how you are doing so. You could probally make a character that solves any problem with PAO, I still wouldn't call it creative.

[Milodiah]

...my wizard has a rapier, too. Banned?

It basically just sounds like you're enforcing your personal opinion of what a wizard should be, and not making it a more rounded or viable class.


And to the above, it's a...seventh (do correct me if I'm wrong) eighth level spell, they're kind of supposed to be extremely useful and powerful. Which is why the spell level system exists, the designers recognize some are better than others. Some

[Fax Celestis]

It circumvents WBL which limits what other classes can have for gear. Giving you another several hundered GP to spend.
Unfair, broken.

BANNED

lol

This made me think of this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?169565-Why-Spellcasting-Is-Unbalanced-(And-It-s-Not-Why-You-Think)

[Milodiah]

This made me think of this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?169565-Why-Spellcasting-Is-Unbalanced-(And-It-s-Not-Why-You-Think)


That's just because D&D doesn't include any economics, at all, ever.

You flood the market with something, the market is flooded. Supply exceeds demand, price dips. I learned that my first day of my first macroeconomics class.


Which is why I've dedicated myself to throwing D&D "economics" out the window and fixing them to actually match something that could pass for a functional system, but God it's hard.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Fax Celestis
My personal banlist.

...It's a little heavy-handed but it pretty succinctly cuts off 90% of the cheese in the game.

I can appreciate you've developed this based on your own experience, and I'm sure it reflects exactly the sort of game you want to run. There are details I like, such as the +1 adjustment to Invisible Spell.

But overall, gawd. Nothing would turn me off faster than seeing a solid wall of banned items like this.

[maniacalmojo]

You guys seem to be defending the broken bits.. I am asking for a list of spells that are known to be broken or make a class mostly not fun to play because the wizard can just do that too.

Doing damage is not replicating another class or making them worthless (unless you just far exceed what you should do)
Knock is banned because its only function is to (without a save) Do what a rogue is supposed to be their for.
Invisibility for a similar reason (however many more ways around invisibility)
By breaking the action economy i was talking about things that gain you extra actions or dely opponents actions in a meaningful way.


The entire point of this post is to identify the well known -broken spell- and just not use them in game. Not to kill the fluff or versatility of a wizard to any real extent.

[Fax Celestis]

Knock is banned because its only function is to (without a save) Do what a rogue is supposed to be their for.

If a rogue's purpose were to use Open Lock, they would have given it as a rogue-only class feature, not a skill that anyone can take.

[maniacalmojo]

If a rogue's purpose were to use Open Lock, they would have given it as a rogue-only class feature, not a skill that anyone can take.

Rogue and rogue like classes. D&D does not require any class to be in it but a rogue is required to use skills and while you may not like to be pigionholed into a charecter type there are different ways around anything a rogue can do but have the wizard just walk up and do everything you can do but also has more variety with that spell then you do with your skill and other spells to assist and back things up it just makes you feel worthless.

[LordHenry]

I always ban the Polymorph line, celerity line, Shivering Touch and Contigency (as well as craft contigent spell). This makes for a reasonable game in the low - mid levels.

[Fax Celestis]

a rogue is required to use skills

...according to...?

EDIT: Let me show you my favorite rogue I've ever played. Damocles Spyridon (http://pifro.com/pro/view.php?id=4521).

[Milodiah]

Not to mention if a rogue's main purpose was to open locks, I'd just build some kind of hovering autopick golem thingy that looked like that Imperial torture droid from Star Wars Episode IV and laugh at the sad unemployed rogue currently picking my pocket.

My attitude is that if a wizard wants to be roguelike, go right ahead. If a rogue wants to be wizardlike, he can be a beguiler and go right ahead.

[bjoern]

You guys seem to be defending the broken bits.. I am asking for a list of spells that are known to be broken or make a class mostly not fun to play because the wizard can just do that too.

Doing damage is not replicating another class or making them worthless (unless you just far exceed what you should do)
Knock is banned because its only function is to (without a save) Do what a rogue is supposed to be their for.
Invisibility for a similar reason (however many more ways around invisibility)
By breaking the action economy i was talking about things that gain you extra actions or dely opponents actions in a meaningful way.


The entire point of this post is to identify the well known -broken spell- and just not use them in game. Not to kill the fluff or versatility of a wizard to any real extent.

I suggest not banning stuff. Tweak it to make it not as enticing to break.

Knock-have the locks do something bad unless they are properly disarmed.

Invisibility-lots of ways to see invisible. Plus, you can still be heard. Require move silently checks. Spot checks to notice the puddle in front of you. General things that a rogue would just know. Make the wizard roll for em.

Action economy. I assume you mean celerity. That's easy. Use celerity, then your dazed. Period. What your immune to daze, then your immune to celerity also. Spellsurge, fusion, and quicken.
7th level...sorc only....no wizard abuse here
fusion....potent, but can't really use MM on them
Quicken- I'd say the LA makes it balanced -ish

Random though. What about requiring casters to use a different XP chart and level slower. It kind of makes sense. A 20yo kid with 1 year of college is less experienced at being a doctor than a 20 yo kid with a year of food service is experienced at being a burger flipper I'd say the burger flipper kid probably has it down and mastered.


No offense to food service . Please hold the spit.

[Zanos]

My personal banlist.



It's a little heavy-handed but it pretty succinctly cuts off 90% of the cheese in the game.
I don't see the point in making invisible spell +1 if arcane thesis has been nerfed. Are you trying to prevent scorching ray sneak attacks? And the Dread Necromancer ban makes me sad, as does the Beguiler having bard progression, since both were solid T3 classes. Playing a spellcaster with that banlist doesn't seem particularly enjoyable.

There's also still a couple of ways I can think of where a Warmage(who still gets 9ths) can get access to other spell lists. (Magical Training, Rainbow Servant.)

[Giddonihah]

...my wizard has a rapier, too. Banned?

It basically just sounds like you're enforcing your personal opinion of what a wizard should be, and not making it a more rounded or viable class.


And to the above, it's a...seventh (do correct me if I'm wrong) eighth level spell, they're kind of supposed to be extremely useful and powerful. Which is why the spell level system exists, the designers recognize some are better than others. Some

You are arguing, but the OP isn't asking for arguments against him, he's asking for a list of spells that are powerful, and could be banned. He is looking to nerf magic, the excuse that its high level doesn't protect it here.

PAO is a very powerful spell with strong cheese applications, under the OP's request it qualifies for a bannable spell.
Wish and Miracle are both very powerful spells often significantly more powerful than other level nine spells.
Astral Projection could easily be banned.
Illusions could be banned, yes illusions, good luck finding someone who uses them to their max potential though.
Save or Die single save spells could be banned, or kept, that's more if you hate having to deathward all your important monsters.
Scry and teleport could both be banned if they were counter to the aesthetic you are going for (some people like players travelling). Though just requesting scry and die not to be used solves the problem.
Shrink object is full of cheese if abused, otherwise its fine.
Glibness could be banned, its really really easy to abuse as the bonus is so huge that you can pretty much start telling unbelievable lies right away. Still the Bard is gonna bard.
Zone of Truth could be banned as it invalidates bluff.
Neg level giving spells could be banned, they are usually some of the top spells of their level, and they do a lot of effects.
Freedom of Movement could be banned because it singlehandedly destroys grappling as a concept.

Note that I'm using 'could' in that you could ban the spell, a lot of spells have innocent usage that aren't a problem, like Scry is less obnoxious when used separate from teleport, or PAO is not used to transmute the Fighter into a permanent War Troll or Shrink Objects isn't used to drop boulders on enemy's from 100ft up.

[DonKalypso]

Yes, it circumvents the rogues use fullness

<A bunch of blather>

Here is how i play a caster

1. Keep things moving forward, if you're needed to solve a problem. Solve it

2. If $%&# hits the fan and everyone is gonna die, pull off the kid gloves and get them out of there

3. Everyone has fun. Dominate the game by boosting the party with haste etc. And hosing the enemies to keep your party members alive.


Break the action economy

-Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed (find traps and knock for instance)
-Are imbalanced for their level
-provide too much cheese
-Are too powerful
-Need a longer casting time
-bypass all defenses
-Can be easily exploited

Let's look at what this does here.....only 1 spell per turn while everyone else gets multiple attacks (isn't too bad but make that spell count)

No spell is allowed now that gives an alternative to a class feature. No invisibility, no spell that gives any kind of skill bonus, no divination at all (gathering info is the rogues job) the list goes on and on. Damage spells.....that reduces melee classes usefulness.

<A lot more blather>

Easily exploited. DMs discretion invoked here to keep things in line.
Contingency comes to mind. Just make the trigger be something believable. Not just
"When I want to trigger this effect OOC it triggers"

Common sense and DM discretion go a long way when it comes to balancing things out.

Plus, if you ban a bunch of stuff the only rreason a player would play a caster would be to find something you missed and try to break it. Thus making it banned in the next game.

Point Purple:
This is bullcrap. Utter bullcrap. To ban one class's ability to replicate another class's ability shouldn't stop at just spells. It should apply to class abilities as well. Might I suggest you prevent everyone but the fighter from dealing physical damage, as that's all he's really good for and it's what he excels at?

You can also prevent anyone but the rogue from using skills, as that's all the rogue's good for now that we've banned him from dealing damage.

Next we ban the everyone but the Ranger from using Survival and Handle Animal, as that's all he's good for since we prevented him from doing damage or becoming a face.

Now we prevent everyone else from doing anything, because it encroaches on someone else's ability to do something, and as a result should be banned. Healing spells encroach on one's ability to naturally heal from damage, and knowledge skills encroach on the Bard's Bardic Knowledge ability.

To coddle lower tier classes like this is asinine and a stupid and futile effort.

Point Green:
This is the first thing you've said thus far in this thread that makes any modicum of sense. Common Sense is an oft forgotten super power, and one that so many people lack. Thinking through what the party has and how best to counter it without destroying the party is part of the DM's job.

Point Blue:
Congrats, you've come full circle and are now describing the very problem you sought to stomp out as the player's ONLY RECOURSE. Standard discretion and common sense (See Point Green above) are the best ways for a DM to ensure everyone at the table has fun while contributing to the collaborative story telling. To explode onto the scene with insanity and banning anything that "Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed" is reckless and idiotic.

In Conclusion:
Common sense, discretion, and generally being a good sport will lead to fun and engaging gameplay. Going extreme with houserules and bans leads to players resenting the DM or not returning to his games. A banned book because of extreme cheese is fine for the average player group, a complete restructuring of the system and its mechanics is not fine for anyone.

[maniacalmojo]

...according to...?

EDIT: Let me show you my favorite rogue I've ever played. Damocles Myrmidont (http://pifro.com/pro/view.php?id=4521).

Ha that is pretty awesome (where is that charecter sheet btw, i like it) But the advantage of a rogue is the skill point and list. Not really utilizing that is similar to a wizard running around punching people. It can work but not what most people would go for.

[Milodiah]

Also, I personally think it'd be pretty hilarious if you banned all this stuff that makes wizards into semi-rogues, and all that to 'preserve the rogue's place at the table', and then ended up like my group where there isn't a rogue at the table.

"Can you cast Knock?"
"Nope, DM fiat says it hurts the imaginary rogue's feelings."

[Giddonihah]

I can barely comprehend that someone is defending knock. Removing spells that invalidate skill checks is probably the most justified ban you can do, they shouldn't even exist in the system to begin with. Its not like a Wizard is incapable of being broken without them, and its not like the removal suddenly nerfs them to the oblivion. It doesn't even touch the raw arcane power of a Wizard, and even if every spell mentioned in this thread were banned, wizards would STILL outclass martials by a magnitude.

[Zanos]

I can barely comprehend that someone is defending knock. Removing spells that invalidate skill checks is probably the most justified ban you can do, they shouldn't even exist in the system to begin with. Its not like a Wizard is incapable of being broken without them, and its not like the removal suddenly nerfs them to the oblivion.
A fighter can just kick the door in. Knock has a verbal component so it doesn't have the advantage of not being heard either.

Still, open lock as it's own skill is dumb and rogues are an awful mechanic. Rogues join parties because they are needed to disable traps and pick locks, but traps and locks only exist so the rogue feels like he serves a purpose.

[Fax Celestis]

Ha that is pretty awesome (where is that charecter sheet btw, i like it) But the advantage of a rogue is the skill point and list. Not really utilizing that is similar to a wizard running around punching people. It can work but not what most people would go for.

My point (and the reason I linked Damocles) is that he doesn't have Open Lock at all. I spent my points on other things, thematically appropriate things for a Wilderness Feat Rogue with Dungeoncrasher. The party did fine when we came across a locked door, because I kicked it down.

Just because I put "rogue" at the top of my sheet does not mean I'm spending points in Disable Device, Open Lock, or Hide.

[maniacalmojo]

You guys are acting like rage gamers because i want to ban known abused spells. Why? Yes i will and do use common sense but i also play with people from often very different experiences in D&D and i have had situations as a player where one player felt useless and did not want to play because the wizard did everything they built themselves for. The fighter feeling kinda pointless as the wizard tells him to hang back and summons a bunch of monsters, the rogue feels useless as the wizard uses fly/invisibility/knock and some summons to basically be a rogue.

Like it or not powergamer there are spells that are broken, don't work or are not needed enough to have in the game (not many wizards would really miss knock) If the wizard finds some alternative means for traversing a dungeon go ahead but no class should be able to just walk up and do what a class was designed around but better. With a spell.

[Giddonihah]

A fighter can just kick the door in. Knock has a verbal component so it doesn't have the advantage of not being heard either.

Still, open lock as it's own skill is dumb and rogues are an awful mechanic. Rogues join parties because they are needed to disable traps and pick locks, but traps and locks only exist so the rogue feels like he serves a purpose.

Open lock being its own skill is dumb (Rolling it into disable device was a good decision for pathfinder), but it doesn't justify knocks ability to instantly open any lock no matter how finely crafted as a lvl1 spell. It even opens magically locked doors without even a check..

Its not the unlocking that's OP, its that it invalidates ANY lock no matter how secure, in fact it invalidates TWO locks at a time. As a level one spell.. If you want locks to be anything other than a joke and you aren't willing to fix Knock (add a roll), then it should be banned.


Edit: Believe it or not, but its not the Powergamers complaining in the thread, the Powergamers understand how powerful spells are.

[Milodiah]

Knock is a solution to a problem, just like how open lock is a solution to a problem, just like how kicking the damn door is a solution to the problem. Besides, Knock doesn't disarm traps, so if said door is trapped the wizard hasn't done the entirety of the rogue's job, now has he?

And yes, it does bother me that it's practically a starting spell. I could rest easier with it being a level 3 or so, but the concept is pretty much acceptable to me.

[bjoern]

Point Purple:
This is bullcrap. Utter bullcrap. To ban one class's ability to replicate another class's ability shouldn't stop at just spells. It should apply to class abilities as well. Might I suggest you prevent everyone but the fighter from dealing physical damage, as that's all he's really good for and it's what he excels at?

You can also prevent anyone but the rogue from using skills, as that's all the rogue's good for now that we've banned him from dealing damage.

Next we ban the everyone but the Ranger from using Survival and Handle Animal, as that's all he's good for since we prevented him from doing damage or becoming a face.

Now we prevent everyone else from doing anything, because it encroaches on someone else's ability to do something, and as a result should be banned. Healing spells encroach on one's ability to naturally heal from damage, and knowledge skills encroach on the Bard's Bardic Knowledge ability.

To coddle lower tier classes like this is asinine and a stupid and futile effort.

Point Green:
This is the first thing you've said thus far in this thread that makes any modicum of sense. Common Sense is an oft forgotten super power, and one that so many people lack. Thinking through what the party has and how best to counter it without destroying the party is part of the DM's job.

Point Blue:
Congrats, you've come full circle and are now describing the very problem you sought to stomp out as the player's ONLY RECOURSE. Standard discretion and common sense (See Point Green above) are the best ways for a DM to ensure everyone at the table has fun while contributing to the collaborative story telling. To explode onto the scene with insanity and banning anything that "Replace or make another characters abilities useless/less needed" is reckless and idiotic.

In Conclusion:
Common sense, discretion, and generally being a good sport will lead to fun and engaging gameplay. Going extreme with houserules and bans leads to players resenting the DM or not returning to his games. A banned book because of extreme cheese is fine for the average player group, a complete restructuring of the system and its mechanics is not fine for anyone.

The majority of what I've said is sarcasm. J have made some actual (in my opinion) suggestions on fixes. To me the difference is clear, but then again people see things differently so I can understand.

Mage armor isn't broken I was kidding.

Ultimately , having a "broken wizard PC" isn't a wizard problem. Isn't a celerity , polymorph, or contingency problem.

Its a player problem.

You can't fix an out of game problem by changing the game. That person is still there playing, with the same goal.....how can I break this game. Either talk to problem players or just get a deck of cards and play war.

If you ban a bunch of stuff, a munchkin/powergamer/whatever will just sift through the rubble of what's left and try to break the game with that instead.

[maniacalmojo]

My point (and the reason I linked Damocles) is that he doesn't have Open Lock at all. I spent my points on other things, thematically appropriate things for a Wilderness Feat Rogue with Dungeoncrasher. The party did fine when we came across a locked door, because I kicked it down.

Just because I put "rogue" at the top of my sheet does not mean I'm spending points in Disable Device, Open Lock, or Hide.

Not really going to defend a status because 1/1000 charecters that are cleverly designed can circumvent normal restrictions and be a badass. I have played a VOP, monk that often outclassed the wizard and druid at level 15, does this mean that i am going to say the monk is an amazing class at a higher tier then the normal tier 1?

[Fax Celestis]

Not really going to defend a status because 1/1000 charecters that are cleverly designed can circumvent normal restrictions and be a badass. I have played a VOP, monk that often outclassed the wizard and druid at level 15, does this mean that i am going to say the monk is an amazing class at a higher tier then the normal tier 1?

Not the same thing.

What you should be comparing is, "Just because my character sheet says 'monk' doesn't mean I'm going to punch people to death."

See also: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

[Zanos]

Open lock being its own skill is dumb (Rolling it into disable device was a good decision for pathfinder), but it doesn't justify knocks ability to instantly open any lock no matter how finely crafted as a lvl1 spell. It even opens magically locked doors without even a check..

Its not the unlocking that's OP, its that it invalidates ANY lock no matter how secure, in fact it invalidates TWO locks at a time. As a level one spell.. If you want locks to be anything other than a joke and you aren't willing to fix Knock (add a roll), then it should be banned.


Edit: Believe it or not, but its not the Powergamers complaining in the thread, the Powergamers understand how powerful spells are.
The barbarian's foot doesn't care how good the lock is either.

[Milodiah]

I'd like to point out that any sufficiently powerful Evocation spell can achieve the (more or less) same purpose of Knock, albeit in a much more entertaining way.

[bjoern]

Someone said earlier that all spells needed approval.

If a player wants to play a caster then every feat, spell, race, PRC , item, etc has to be approved by the rest of the group with the DM having veto power and final say.

If the player "pulls a fast one" and something slips by and makes it way into play then the DM can remove the feature in question and replace it with one of that players choosing once it passes a vote of course.

[Milodiah]

Someone said earlier that all spells needed approval.

If a player wants to play a caster then every feat, spell, race, PRC , item, etc has to be approved by the rest of the group with the DM having veto power and final say.

If the player "pulls a fast one" and something slips by and makes it way into play then the DM can remove the feature in question and replace it with one of that players choosing once it passes a vote of course.

...why are you discriminating against casters at this point? Because if we've got a human generalist wizard 1 and a water orc totem barbarian berserk 1, I guarantee it probably ain't the wizard that's getting the attention of the anti-minmaxing crowd.

[HaikenEdge]

You guys are acting like rage gamers because i want to ban known abused spells. Why? Yes i will and do use common sense but i also play with people from often very different experiences in D&D and i have had situations as a player where one player felt useless and did not want to play because the wizard did everything they built themselves for. The fighter feeling kinda pointless as the wizard tells him to hang back and summons a bunch of monsters, the rogue feels useless as the wizard uses fly/invisibility/knock and some summons to basically be a rogue.

Like it or not powergamer there are spells that are broken, don't work or are not needed enough to have in the game (not many wizards would really miss knock) If the wizard finds some alternative means for traversing a dungeon go ahead but no class should be able to just walk up and do what a class was designed around but better. With a spell.

I'm not sure why, but I find this post incredibly offensive.

That aside, it just seems like you have a very different perspective about the game than many of us do. Can you please explain how you view each class's role within the game, so someone like myself can better understand what you're trying to achieve?

From where I play, the fighter is already practically useless regardless of whether the wizard is summoning a mob of enemies, because he can't compete with the enemies the group is fighting, which is supposed to be his job; the rogue is similarly useless because, as a mundane, she can't compete with enemies who have mindsight, lifesight or touchsight when it comes to stealth, and can't reliably beat trap DCs that escalate quickly (a CR 10 trap in the DMG, for example has a Search and Disable Device DC of 34; even with 13 ranks, +4 ability mod [for Int, a secondary ability score], +2 from masterwork thieves tools, the rogue without magical assistance will still need to roll a 15 to find and disable the trap, or will fail nearly 75% of the time).

The Wizard who is summoning the monsters and disabling traps, in my experience, aren't outshining the fighter and rogue because he wants to, but because he doesn't want to die a horrible death, or is doing it as an insurance policy. As for a locked door, I for one often will slap a Silent Portal Disk on a door, then just break it down.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I don't ban all that much. I just tell the players to optimize around the same level, tweak some dysfunctional things, and call it a day. Trying to balance the game one ban at a time is tedious, limiting and overrated.

Also, it's a sad character who needs niche protection for opening locks.

[bjoern]

...why are you discriminating against casters at this point? Because if we've got a human generalist wizard 1 and a water orc totem barbarian berserk 1, I guarantee it probably ain't the wizard that's getting the attention of the anti-minmaxing crowd.

I agree. But this topic is about ways to tone down casters. Aside from assuming that a player will keep things reasonable on their own.

A reasonable player will play a caster reasonably.

An unreasonable player will play a caster to the limit and beyond and split the atom.

An unreasonable player won't bother playing a neutered caster and instead play whatever the next best thing for exploitation is.

End result is still having broken stuff muddling up the game for everyone.
A game breaker will always try to break the game. Until he is convinced to stop by the party or DM.

[Zanos]

I agree. But this topic is about ways to tone down casters. Aside from assuming that a player will keep things reasonable on their own.

A reasonable player will play a caster reasonably.

An unreasonable player will play a caster to the limit and beyond and split the atom.

An unreasonable player won't bother playing a neutered caster and instead play whatever the next best thing for exploitation is.

End result is still having broken stuff muddling up the game for everyone.
A game breaker will always try to break the game. Until he is convinced to stop by the party or DM.
The best way to play with unreasonable people is to not.

[Milodiah]

I agree. But this topic is about ways to tone down casters. Aside from assuming that a player will keep things reasonable on their own.

A reasonable player will play a caster reasonably.

An unreasonable player will play a caster to the limit and beyond and split the atom.

An unreasonable player won't bother playing a neutered caster and instead play whatever the next best thing for exploitation is.

End result is still having broken stuff muddling up the game for everyone.
A game breaker will always try to break the game. Until he is convinced to stop by the party or DM.

...if he's playing 'to the limit', what's wrong with that? Isn't that why there's a limit, so you can tell your players where to stop? Telling them not to go to the limit is just imposing a new limit. I mean, I understand the urge to prune the mystical cheese-tree, but I just feel it's a whole slippery-slope argument inside a simple sentence or so.

Then again, as a DM I have yet to have the issue of a specific player flipping through multiple published sourcebooks and trying to convince me against my better judgement that the übermensch he's built for himself is technically okay because of the phrasing of this paragraph on page 91 here, or how it's okay that he's using an obscure spell from a 3rd-party book because it's not 'too bad'.

But I've never once had an issue with someone straight-up abusing a regular old PHB spell to the point where I felt compelled to tell him to stop.

[squiggit]

My personal banlist.



It's a little heavy-handed but it pretty succinctly cuts off 90% of the cheese in the game.

Don't understand the DN ban or Beguiler nerfs. Both fit solidly within your expected power range without cheese. Ditto witb ToB.

[maniacalmojo]

I'm not sure why, but I find this post incredibly offensive.

That aside, it just seems like you have a very different perspective about the game than many of us do. Can you please explain how you view each class's role within the game, so someone like myself can better understand what you're trying to achieve?

From where I play, the fighter is already practically useless regardless of whether the wizard is summoning a mob of enemies, because he can't compete with the enemies the group is fighting, which is supposed to be his job; the rogue is similarly useless because, as a mundane, she can't compete with enemies who have mindsight, lifesight or touchsight when it comes to stealth, and can't reliably beat trap DCs that escalate quickly (a CR 10 trap in the DMG, for example has a Search and Disable Device DC of 34; even with 13 ranks, +4 ability mod [for Int, a secondary ability score], +2 from masterwork thieves tools, the rogue without magical assistance will still need to roll a 15 to find and disable the trap, or will fail nearly 75% of the time).

The Wizard who is summoning the monsters and disabling traps, in my experience, aren't outshining the fighter and rogue because he wants to, but because he doesn't want to die a horrible death, or is doing it as an insurance policy. As for a locked door, I for one often will slap a Silent Portal Disk on a door, then just break it down.

Sorry, just posted this looking for a quick reference of obviously exploited spells and got people defending the broken ness of spells cause why not.

Groups i play with have really wide array of skill level, knowledge and experience. Current game has one brand new player to anything gaming at all ever. One veteran role player of thirty years and a min maxer who inadvertantly creates crazy powerful charecters on accident. Along with a few others but most of my groups are built like this with a wide array of talents so sometimes a power gamer friend comes in and does not realize or care that his charecter just made the new players charecter mostly pointless.

[Milodiah]

Then ask him to design a better character. Don't go line-by-line down all the sourcebooks and draw lines through everything because you don't appreciate the way they're being deployed in this session.

Also, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Factotum?

[maniacalmojo]

I like factotum on a theoretical level but never played in a group with one or looked too much into it.

[Milodiah]

I like factotum on a theoretical level but never played in a group with one or looked too much into it.

...but you're mad at wizards for having factotum-like capabilities?

[maniacalmojo]

not sure the capabilities. As far as i know they are a rogue with less skill points but more skill choices and a few features i forgot about

[DonKalypso]

not sure the capabilities. As far as i know they are a rogue with less skill points but more skill choices and a few features i forgot about

To help jog your memory: This is the Factotum (http://dndtools.eu/classes/factotum/)

[bjoern]

Sorry, just posted this looking for a quick reference of obviously exploited spells and got people defending the broken ness of spells cause why not.

Groups i play with have really wide array of skill level, knowledge and experience. Current game has one brand new player to anything gaming at all ever. One veteran role player of thirty years and a min maxer who inadvertantly creates crazy powerful charecters on accident. Along with a few others but most of my groups are built like this with a wide array of talents so sometimes a power gamer friend comes in and does not realize or care that his charecter just made the new players charecter mostly pointless.

No need to apologize.

As far as easily exploited spells go....tell the player that you'll allow spells like poly, celerity, etc. But if they get stupid with them then you'll take them away.

As far as new players making crappy characters is concerned let's have an example.

New player makes crappy character A
That sheet is photocopied and given to an experienced player .

They both are in an encounter where the new player doesn't realize that he sucks and is quickly killed by mooks. Meanwhile the experienced player uses what he has going for him over the enemy. 10 more feet of movement for example, to draw the enemies away from the ranges character so they can get off FRAs against the enemy each turn.

A caster with no spells at all but played by an experienced player will make a new player with a crappy character seem useless.
Have the new player make a useful character who has a purpose and help him understand how to use it. Even if its holding his hand in combat as a DM and telling him what to do to be efficient .

[DonKalypso]

I would also like to point out that having multiple characters that can do similar things is useful.

The rogue can distract people while the wizard LOUDLY CASTS HIS SPELLS to unlock the door. Or the wizard can distract people while the rogue takes roughly the same amount of time to silently unlock the door.

It's all in how the DM understands character abilities and how the party as a whole understand character abilities. If you're allowing the spellcaster to simply cast his spells that, by the way, need to be spoken loud and clear, then you the DM are messing up and allowing your more experienced players to steamroll your noobs.

[Milodiah]

Which is an interesting question; yeah, there are vocal and somatic components to just about everything (yes, yes, I know, metamagic!), but just how vocal and just how somatic are they? Which is a thing that came up in the last game I was a player in; could my bard cast a spell (without metamagic feats, he has none) in a warehouse room while a man was actively searching for him without the man hearing him? Just how loud do you have to say this stuff, anyway? Is it just muttered to yourself? Or does it have to be loud enough for, I dunno, the Universe to hear you and realize you're about to jerk it around some if that's okay with it?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

First of all, ew. Second,


A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice.To hear that would be DC 0 + distance penalties.

[Zanos]

Which is an interesting question; yeah, there are vocal and somatic components to just about everything (yes, yes, I know, metamagic!), but just how vocal and just how somatic are they? Which is a thing that came up in the last game I was a player in; could my bard cast a spell (without metamagic feats, he has none) in a warehouse room while a man was actively searching for him without the man hearing him? Just how loud do you have to say this stuff, anyway? Is it just muttered to yourself? Or does it have to be loud enough for, I dunno, the Universe to hear you and realize you're about to jerk it around some if that's okay with it?

Verbal (V)
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance to spoil any spell with a verbal component that he or she tries to cast.
Somatic (S)
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

I would assume a Verbal components has to be about normal speaking volume, so you can't whisper it. The Listen DC to hear someone talking is 0, so yeah.

There's a +5 to the Listen DC for trying to hear through a door and various other modifiers for distance and walls, though.

EDIT:I just realized that the Verbal component entry only says that you must be ABLE to speak in a strong voice, not that you actually have to speak in one. Interesting.

[DonKalypso]

Straight from the PHB for 3.5 D&D

Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incatation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance to spoil any spell with a verbal component that he or she tries to cast.

To this end a caster without the metamagic feat Silent Spell must speak aloud the incantation needed for the spell. He will be heard, he can not whisper it, and he can not mumble it.

[Fax Celestis]

Don't understand the DN ban or Beguiler nerfs. Both fit solidly within your expected power range without cheese. Ditto witb ToB.

Those were mostly because the game it was initially drawn up for was a socially-centric game: DN wouldn't be appropriate and beguiler would've been synergistically overpowered due to the campaign's nature. ToB wasn't appropriate mostly because it was so martially focused, and combat was expected to happen very infrequently.

[Windstorm]

Personally, I've never understood the fundamental need people have to create or use banlists. it isn't terribly effective, and often ends up accidentally or unintentionally stifling player creativity.

to quote a couple posts I have made on the subject before:


DMs should not be in the business of arbitrary restrictions without very good reason. Class balance isn't even a good excuse, because it is up to the players involved to make sure that they are balanced against eachother. this is one of the most common problems now with everyone approaching it from "the system must be balanced" as opposed to "the system might be unbalaced but I can moderate myself" the former is laregly the result of people being too used to video games, which are by nature a closed system and there is no DM, just a deterministic set of rules that cannot be changed except by balance patches to a wide audience. a DM provides one thing to the tabletop game that a videogame will never have: a two-way dialogue about what rules are fun, what rules are fair, why those rules exist, and what can be changed to promote the most fun gaming experience for the party as a whole. the DM is not a game designer who needs to balance everything for a large audience they will never interact with, they only need to balance the players against eachother's power levels, and the only tool required to do that most times is good communication, not changing the rules.

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.


sorry for the wall of text, but it is something I've come to feel pretty strongly about.

TL;DR version: OOC diplomacy works better than rules fiddling 99% of the time.

[Milodiah]

If anyone ever says to me "That monster can't do that, I read the Manual!", I just glare at them and reply, "I suppose that means it isn't what you think it is."

The first game I ever ran was Call of Cthulhu, and the one biggest rule about monsters there is "never tell the players their name", even OOC, because then they have an OOC knowledge of exactly how it works if they recognize the name. It's still stuck with me into D&D, and I'm not about to let the players know up front if the dead body that's approaching them menacingly is a zombie or a wight or a bleakborn or whatever until they deduce enough to know what it is.

[Zanos]

If anyone ever says to me "That monster can't do that, I read the Manual!", I just glare at them and reply, "I suppose that means it isn't what you think it is."

The first game I ever ran was Call of Cthulhu, and the one biggest rule about monsters there is "never tell the players their name", even OOC, because then they have an OOC knowledge of exactly how it works if they recognize the name. It's still stuck with me into D&D, and I'm not about to let the players know up front if the dead body that's approaching them menacingly is a zombie or a wight or a bleakborn or whatever until they deduce enough to know what it is.
Isn't that the purpose of knowledge skills?

[Milodiah]

It can be, yeah. But my players have learned not to always expect to roll and then get told "Oh yeah, you made that check. It's totes a gravetouched ghoul, brah." And they rather like it that way.

I'll also add that nobody is actually playing the "sage adventurer with more off-camera adventure experience than the entirety of the Knights of the Round Table" stereotype, so it barely even comes up. Usually it's more a reaction of "Oh no a bad thing! Kill it!"

[daremetoidareyo]

...if he's playing 'to the limit', what's wrong with that? Isn't that why there's a limit, so you can tell your players where to stop? Telling them not to go to the limit is just imposing a new limit. I mean, I understand the urge to prune the mystical cheese-tree, but I just feel it's a whole slippery-slope argument inside a simple sentence or so.



This attitude is why watching soccer sucks. You watch a bunch of finely honed athletes pretending to roll on the ground hurt because the limit of the rules says that what a referee says, goes. There is no drawback to flopping around like bad soap opera actor, and the individuals don't care about the integrity of the sport or the intent of fouling rules: they just wanna "win." Players who see the limit as a thing to over-ride look at the rules, saying "if I'm "hurt" then I get a free kick. The RAW don't mention a guideline for "hurt" so it is up to judges, so I'll just pretend and attempt to get an advantage whenever an opposing player so much as whispers too hard at me."


In this scenario, a good judge petitions to change the rules or apply a penalty for obvious faking. In D&D, it can look like a spell ban, a conversation about the responsible use of in game powers for all players, or things not working out as planned.


In D&D, The blatant, often non-synchronous attempt to gain that slight advantage often makes the storyline lame, the character incongruous, as well as making little gameplay sense. I love lateral thinking and surprises that clever players throw out, but it better be original.


I am not in the camp of banning knock or PAO, but you can make a sure bet that you can't metamagic a spell beyond a spell level you know and then knock it back down with other feats/nightsticks. In my campaigns, you can't use wall of salt for quick cash. Otherwise, they should have just named the spell wall of gold and been done with it.

[SinsI]

There are no broken spells, there are broken uses/combinations of spells and abilities.
I.e. paladins get spellcasting late on, so some spells for them were modified to have lower level than for full spellcasting clerics.
Now comes full spellcaster archivist and abuses those spells, getting access to them way earlier than planned and tested.

Same with every other "broken" spell or ability - as long as they are used As Imagined By Game Creators, all of them have perfectly balanced and legitimate uses.