Banning

[animevacker1045]

Are there any big game breaking stuff that I should ban in Pathfinder, like spells,feats or traits ?

[Forrestfire]

Overall, pathfinder, like 3.5, is broken in enough ways that the only way to deal with it is to play carefully, with a gentleman's agreement to not break things. A good place to start would be to ban the higher-end broken things and the lower-end broken things, leaving the stuff that's reasonably balanced instead. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the best way to play pathfinder is to ignore 90% of it and bring in some of the better-made 3rd-party stuff.

My suggestions:

Ban the first-party pathfinder classes except Alchemist, Paladin, Inquisitor, Magus, Barbarian, and Bard.
If you plan on traps, point out the Trap Finder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder) trait and make it available, since rogue is kinda sad.
Bring in Dreamscarred Press' Path of War (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war).
Bring in Dreamscarred Press' psionics rules and classes, refluffing psionics' mechanics as magic as needed (Psion == Wizard, with a fluff spellbook and spell components, works as normal otherwise. Maybe give them the option of a familiar instead of a psicrystal; Vitalist == Cleric of the healy variety, etc), or just using them as psionics. The system runs much better than magic's, and the classes are more balanced that the tier 1 casters.
Bring in Radiance House's Occultist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist) to play the role of "weird magic-user."
Use other stuff on a case-by-case basis, including the normal Pathfinder stuff. Overall, though, unless the group has a lot of system mastery and is willing to play ball on that gentleman's agreement, the game is much better if you cut out the majority of it.

[Psyren]

Ban the first-party pathfinder classes except Alchemist, Paladin, Inquisitor, Magus, Barbarian, and Bard.
If you plan on traps, point out the Trap Finder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder) trait and make it available, since rogue is kinda sad.

Assuming your goal is T3/T4 range, I would add Slayer, Investigator, Hunter/Ranger, Warpriest, Bloodrager, Brawler, Skald and Ninja to this list. And then your trapmonkey (if you even use traps) won't necessarily need the trait if he picks one of the classes above that gets the ability, though you can still make the trait available if you wish.

I'd also make Magi playable but that's just me.

[Forrestfire]

Ah, I'd forgotten about some of those. Probably worth looking at, too, yeah... What's the issue with Magi that makes them unplayable?

[Ssalarn]

As Forrestfire mentions, there's a lot of stuff that could be potentially game-breaking; it really depends on your group and expectations.

Psyren and Forrestfire gave you a good list for creating a game where everyone is balanced to roughly the same levels of power and versatility, and just avoiding the classes that are potentially too weak or too powerful is certainly one way to take it. I'm not a big fan of booting the monk though; while the core monk can be painfully weak, there's so many viable options with archetypes and style feats in play that I, personally, would keep him around.

Here's a better question though: What types of elements would you find to be game-breaking? Characters that deal too much damage? Characters that have too much narrative power (i.e. options to take control of the game)? Characters that don't deal enough damage, or have too little narrative power?

Knowing what kinds of things you personally consider game-breaking could really help us tailor an answer more specifically to you and your group.


Ah, I'd forgotten about some of those. Probably worth looking at, too, yeah... What's the issue with Magi that makes them unplayable?

I actually really like the Magus. I think it's one of the better takes on the gish concept.

[Vhaidara]

I second the comments about banning most Paizo material and using DSP. Personally, I ban all Paizo classes but Alchemist and Investigator and use DSP content plus another third party book called Spheres of Power. All of the classes are similarly powered, and you can easily recreate all the traditional casters at a more balanced level.


I'd also make Magi playable but that's just me.

I think he just missed them on your list.

[Psyren]

Ah, I'd forgotten about some of those. Probably worth looking at, too, yeah... What's the issue with Magi that makes them unplayable?

By "make them playable" I meant "add them to the allowed list." But some DMs do have problems with them due to the damage they can dish out via spellstrike.

[RoboEmperor]

What's with these mega huge ban lists?

Don't ban anything. If something gets too strong, deal with it then. Say this group is low/mid/high op at the start. Wizards are balanced until the players start splitting hairs on RAW rules, or starts copying some OP online thing.

[Elricaltovilla]

So nice to see DSP stuff coming highly recommended. It might be worth it to allow the PoW archetypes for the core classes as well, although those are only in playtest right now, but they do offer some more variety.

[Forrestfire]

What's with these mega huge ban lists?

Don't ban anything. If something gets too strong, deal with it then. Say this group is low/mid/high op at the start. Wizards are balanced until the players start splitting hairs on RAW rules, or starts copying some OP online thing.

Speaking as someone who has, in the past, accidentally broken the game just by picking the neat spells that seemed useful, this is factually incorrect. It's really not hard to look at the rules and go "huh, direct damage isn't that great, but there's a lot of stuff that just takes out enemies with one roll." Glitterdust, for example, was something I found and spammed years ago when I was starting to play 3.5, because it just seemed obvious how good it is.

There is no need to split hairs on RAW rules, nor copy anything online, to break the game with a wizard. They're fundamentally a problem with the game (although admittedly, I prefer to play under the gentleman's agreement method, with a decently high-op baseline, because it's more fun to DM when the players have powerful tools as well).

[Kurald Galain]

Are there any big game breaking stuff that I should ban in Pathfinder, like spells,feats or traits ?

That depends entirely on what level range you expect to be playing in, and how much optimization you and your players are comfortable with.

Starting from Psyren's list (because I find Forest's way too short), I should add that at levels 1 through 8, I don't see any problem with allowing cleric, oracle, sorcerer, witch, and wizard.

Rogue and monk are problematic because of how weak they are. Gunslinger, swashy, and fighter are problematic because they can't really do anything besides deal damage, but some players are ok with that; consider mandating Lore Warden or Mutation Warrior for the Fighter to make it much better. The pet classs (druid, shaman, summoner) are problematic at low level because they're basically two characters for the price of one, and at high level because they're a full caster. I'm not actually familiar with cavalier and samurai because I've never seen anyone interested in playing one.

There may be some spells/feats/traits that need banning on a case-by-case basis, the first thing that comes to mind are those two metamagic-reducing traits.

[Psyren]

What's with these mega huge ban lists?

Don't ban anything. If something gets too strong, deal with it then. Say this group is low/mid/high op at the start. Wizards are balanced until the players start splitting hairs on RAW rules, or starts copying some OP online thing.

In truth I agree with this, T2 and T1 classes are really only a problem if you have a jerkish/immature player.

But I thought I'd supply the T3/T4 list regardless since it's pretty hard to go wrong with those guys.

[Ssalarn]

Speaking as someone who has, in the past, accidentally broken the game just by picking the neat spells that seemed useful, this is factually incorrect. It's really not hard to look at the rules and go "huh, direct damage isn't that great, but there's a lot of stuff that just takes out enemies with one roll." Glitterdust, for example, was something I found and spammed years ago when I was starting to play 3.5, because it just seemed obvious how good it is.

There is no need to split hairs on RAW rules, nor copy anything online, to break the game with a wizard. They're fundamentally a problem with the game (although admittedly, I prefer to play under the gentleman's agreement method, with a decently high-op baseline, because it's more fun to DM when the players have powerful tools as well).

I'll agree there. I've seen lots of people who just wanted to fling fireballs and fly play wizards without really upsetting anything, but I've also seen players who've never browsed a forum in their life make a character that mops the floor with a given campaign and relegates the other party members to flunkies just by picking the stuff that seemed cool and appropriate to their build.

That being said, we also generally use the gentleman's agreement (though recently it hasn't been necessary as we've used more balanced types of spellcasting, like psionics, veilweaving, or spherecasting) and as long as you have a mature group of players that should be enough. Not everyone has a mature group of players though, and sometimes you're at a game store or similar environment where you play with whoever shows up and sits down. In those instances, the gentleman's agreement may not be a firm enough factor, and then you've got to decide what to do.

As far as good alternatives to the core full-casting classes, Dreamscarred Press' Ultimate Psionics includes steps for reflavoring psionics as rune magic, and that system is inherently more balanced than the core arcane system. There's also the Akashic Mysteries classes (two have been released so far) that cover a lot of concepts from control wizard to paladin in a well-balanced system. Spheres of Power from Drop Dead Studios is a fun 3pp spellcasting supplement that's super well balanced, and has the added benefit of already being set up in such a way that it's easily grafted onto any of the current spellcaster chassis', so you can allow all the classes, but control what they bring to the table. Liber Influxus from Amora Games has a few warlock type casters with all day abilities that simulate spellcasting in a more focused manner, so those might be worth checking out. I think the Occultist from Radiance House is also pretty solid, but it's got a lot of fluff that's really intertwined with the system, and may not be what you're looking for.

Those are the only ones that leap to mind; most of the other 3pp caster types I'm familiar with key off the core spellcasting system, and thus inherit most of its problems.

[Barstro]

In truth I agree with this, T2 and T1 classes are really only a problem if you have a jerkish/immature player.

OR one who came up with a theme that is suddenly broken. If you are going to allow T1/T2, then the DM should probably be involved in the character development to make certain that the player's idea doesn't get gimped the the future, forcing the player to no longer have fun.

[Ssalarn]

OR one who came up with a theme that is suddenly broken. If you are going to allow T1/T2, then the DM should probably be involved in the character development to make certain that the player's idea doesn't get gimped the the future, forcing the player to no longer have fun.

Yeah, it's a bit of a bummer when you figure a whole cool theme and then right when it all comes together the DM goes "Whoa, whoa, whoa, you do what? I'm going to have to nix that" "Cool. Glad that I've been building towards this for the last 8 levels just to have it slapped down".

That's probably the biggest problems with some of the Tier 1-2 builds. While some of them you can see coming from a mile away, some of them require a specific level or other threshold to come online, and you (the DM or the player) may not see the negative ramifications coming ahead of time. Or the player picks something that scales really, really well. That Conjurer wasn't too bad when he was bringing fire beetles into combat, but that choir of angels he just gained access to might be another story. Then the DM ends up retconning something he'd already inadvertently approved. Some people will be mature enough to roll with that, others may end up with hurt feelings.

[Psyren]

Speaking personally, if one of my concepts ended up banned and I was unable to IRL Diplomacy an allowance or adjustment, I've got dozens more in my head I'm dying to try at any given time.

But then, my IRL Diplomacy score is pretty good. Caption (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=740) :smallbiggrin:

[Barstro]

A similar downside to T1/T2 being played by a "mature" person in such a way that they do not outshine the other players or achieve brokenness is that most people are aware of it. Sure, it's fun to win at D&D, but if you know your teammate is really Superman but is holding back his strength unless needed, it rather loses its thrill.

[Psyren]

A similar downside to T1/T2 being played by a "mature" person in such a way that they do not outshine the other players or achieve brokenness is that most people are aware of it. Sure, it's fun to win at D&D, but if you know your teammate is really Superman but is holding back his strength unless needed, it rather loses its thrill.

Honestly I don't think bold is accurate, or at the very least not meaningful. Say I am a less experienced player - any co-op game I sit down to with the folks who know what they're doing, I expect that they could cut loose if they really wanted to and save the day, or I don't notice when they're doing so. And if I am experienced, I know what I'm in for by taking a weaker class and someone else who is experienced takes the stronger one.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, it's a bit of a bummer when you figure a whole cool theme and then right when it all comes together the DM goes "Whoa, whoa, whoa, you do what? I'm going to have to nix that" "Cool. Glad that I've been building towards this for the last 8 levels just to have it slapped down".

You probably shouldn't do builds like that without asking the DM first, then. If you've planned it in advance, it's not hard to ask him in advance.

[Ssalarn]

Honestly I don't think bold is accurate, or at the very least not meaningful. Say I am a less experienced player - any co-op game I sit down to with the folks who know what they're doing, I expect that they could cut loose if they really wanted to and save the day, or I don't notice when they're doing so. And if I am experienced, I know what I'm in for by taking a weaker class and someone else who is experienced takes the stronger one.

It's also possible to design a character who isn't Superman, but specializes in turning the rest of the group into the Justice League. Facilitators are some of the best kinds of builds; I've never had a group get mad because me wizard/bard/warlord/tactician/what-have-you was making them all way too good at what they're doing. I did something similar with a Vizier(Seer) in a recent one-off game, where his whole schtick involved creating specific conditions on the battlefield and then helping the party chain together powerful attack routines with his shared teamwork feats. I probably could have handled the encounter in another way, but making everybody else awesome was effective, kept my character safe, and led to us winning. I didn't really have to play down to play cooperatively, and if my favorite move is dropping the Fighter onto the enemy instead of just teleporting them to moon, what really matters is that in one of those scenarios we both got to participate and still achieved the same desired effect.

[jedipotter]

What's with these mega huge ban lists?

Don't ban anything. If something gets too strong, deal with it then. Say this group is low/mid/high op at the start. Wizards are balanced until the players start splitting hairs on RAW rules, or starts copying some OP online thing.

I don't really get the mega huge ban lists either. I say don't ban anything.

Bans only are needed vs the problem players: The players that look at the rules and try to alter/break/use things to their advantage. If you don't have a player like that, you don't have anything to worry about.

And it's much easier to just have everyone agree ''the DM is God'', so even if a player ''by accident'' does some wacky rules breaking game ruining effect the DM can just shrug and say ''Eh, it does not happen your character falls asleep'', even if page 42 says it can happen, theoretically, according to at least the players interpretation.

[Ssalarn]

You probably shouldn't do builds like that without asking the DM first, then. If you've planned it in advance, it's not hard to ask him in advance.

That presupposes that the DM or I have some reason to believe it's going to be an issue in advance. If both the player and DM are experienced enough to recognize that it's going to be an issue, it probably won't come up in the first place. You're also assuming that everyone at the table has enough system mastery to recognize these problems coming, when the reality is that the thing that determines what is broken for a group is very rarely the mechanics themselves, but rather the dynamics and make-up of the group.

I've had groups where a charging Cavalier was the thing that everyone felt was "breaking the game" because it could deal so much damage, and another group where the player of a nearly identical build felt stymied and frustrated because his character was having such a comparatively small impact on the game. I've played in groups who flat out didn't allow wizards because they'd had so many issues with their power and utility undermining adventures, and others where they didn't get what all the hubbub was about because they'd only ever had elemental-themed wizards who were desperately dependent on the party martials for defense and who constantly were stymied by resistances, immunity, spell resistance, etc.

That's the biggest problem with the "deal with it as it happens" method; for it to work reliably without hurt feelings or other issues arising, there needs to be roughly equal system mastery, balance expectations, and maturity at the table. It's unlikely that a character dealing 1,000 points of damage on a charge attack would ever disrupt one of my games, but that's because I've been playing the game for 15 years, have taken it apart, designed for it, and incorporate numerous environmental challenges, diverse enemy types, intelligent tactics, etc. into my games. A DM who's more accustomed to a cinematic game and whose players never really developed their system mastery past a certain point might fight the insta-death-charger and his high damage to be absolutely game breaking though.

Back when we played 4E (a game I didn't even really think you could optimize in), we started a group with a couple who are now some of our best friends. We were basically the same age, with the same amount of gaming experience, etc., so we thought it would be a great idea for us all to get a group together. My buddy Steve decided to DM and put a whole adventure together. My Paladin of Bahamut destroyed his adventures. I switched up to a Runepriest so I'd be more focused on buffing and control, thinking that would help spread the spotlight to other members of the group and extend the fights a little more. It only made things worse. Now, Steve and I were friends, so he actually talked to me and said "Mike, what the hell do I do man? I feel like you guys just steamroll anythign I put together". Steve and I sat down and we went over some ways to vary enemy defenses so no one character was likely to hog the spotlight, how to use the environment to his advantage, and how to make better use of minions (one of the best things about 4E). By not banning, Steve became a better DM and learned more about the game, but Steve and I are friends and relatively mature adults. Another player and another DM could very well have found that situation escalating into a confrontation.

Later, we moved on to Pathfinder, I was DMing, and Steve decided he was going to build this tripping half-orc barbarian capable of throwing out boatloads of damage and battlefield control. Unfortunately for Steve, that particular campaign (set in Eberron) included sewer-dwelling undead that erupted into cockroach swarms, enchantment-specialized fey, and all manner of other weird, spooky, and generally resistant to weapon-damage critters. Steve ended up learning the same lesson from 4E in reverse this time as he watched the party wizard "Jeff" handily deal with encounters that he found impossible. Now, in that game, I could have decided Jeff was a problem (half-orc wasn't the ony one getting shown up), or I could have rewritten my adventure to softball things towards Steve's character a bit, but everyone involved were good friends and I decided to kind of let it be a teaching experience instead; Steve learned that the big damage builds can be the least relevant thing in the group, the other players saw a "Batman" caster in action and learned a few new tricks to incorporate into their playstyle, and everyone became better players because of it. That was an ideal situation though; in another group, Jeff could have found himself creating a lot of resentment from the other players, a less experienced DM could have discovered that the Barbarian who struggled in my game was destroying his, etc.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a DM ban something he's not capable of dealing with up front, rather than in the moment where I'm trying to use it. I also would hope that everyone at the table has enough integrity to not try and exploit questionable loopholes or hog the spotlight. If you can't trust in the DM to be able to adapt on the fly though, or if you can't be sure that your players have the exact same expectations of the game you do, it's better to just nip those Tier 1-2 classes before the game even starts, for everyone's sake.

[Kurald Galain]

I've had groups where a charging Cavalier was the thing that everyone felt was "breaking the game" because it could deal so much damage, and another group where the player of a nearly identical build felt stymied and frustrated because his character was having such a comparatively small impact on the game. I've played in groups who flat out didn't allow wizards because they'd had so many issues with their power and utility undermining adventures, and others where they didn't get what all the hubbub was about because they'd only ever had elemental-themed wizards who were desperately dependent on the party martials for defense and who constantly were stymied by resistances, immunity, spell resistance, etc.
Neither of those strikes me as a build that comes online in any surprising way after a couple of levels, though.

[Ssalarn]

Neither of those strikes me as a build that comes online in any surprising way after a couple of levels, though.

Wizards are, almost by definition, surprising. You often literally can't know how much a given option is going to change/break the game until it's there (at least, not without a lot of forum hopping, which contrary to popular belief, is still relatively rare). The Dazing Metamagic feat doesn't seem so bad on a magic missile but what about when it's suddenly applied to a spell that can cover basically any map the group might use? With mounted combat, there's a difference between knowing that Spirited Charge adds a multiplier to your damage, and realizing that that means a 1st level Fighter can execute an attack routine that other classes won't approach for 10 more levels. And what about later, when Coordinated Charge comes online and he's getting two charge attacks a round in, once more putting his damage potential way outside the reach of most other characters? It's pretty standard stuff, but a DM who's never dealt with mounted combat or Teamwork feats might not even see it coming, while the player of the mounted character could have easily assumed this was pretty standard stuff that the DM knowingly opened the door for when he allowed mounted combat.

[Kurald Galain]

Wizards are, almost by definition, surprising. You often literally can't know how much a given option is going to change/break the game until it's there (at least, not without a lot of forum hopping, which contrary to popular belief, is still relatively rare). The Dazing Metamagic feat doesn't seem so bad on a magic missile but what about when it's suddenly applied to a spell that can cover basically any map the group might use?
Sure, but that doesn't invalidate your entire build. It might invalidate one feat or one spell, but then you just go cast something else. Because you're still a wizard.

I'm just not seeing the problem here. If one particular spell or feat is causing issues in the campaign, then the DM should just ban that when he's seen the problem. That doesn't mean you need a lengthy ban list in advance.

[jjcrpntr]

I try to ban very little and what I do ban I make sure my players know far upfront.

I think if you have players that are intentionally breaking the game then that player is a ****. I've had players that play wizards/clerics and such that seem to be no more powerful than a fighter. But that's because the players intentionally avoid over shadowing the other players. If someone wants to be a **** and break the game just because he can I wouldn't want that player at my table.

Really the only thing I can think of at my table that's banned is:
Summoner and the Leadership feat. Summon I ban because I think with my players it would make action economy funky. And before my one player that posts here brings it up, yes I know there's the synthesist but the issue is if I allow that then it wouldn't be fair if the next player wanted to play it.

In general I just ask my players not to be *****, they are pretty good if something comes up that is messing with the game of just not doing it anymore or changing it.

[Coidzor]

Well, there was Paragon Surge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge), but I think their pseudo-errata makes it so that one can only gain one extra spell known per day, making it very useful during downtime and when playing Batman, but not full access to the sorcerer list on a moment's notice.

There may still be something it can combo with to watch out for, though.


My suggestions:

If you plan on traps, point out the Trap Finder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder) trait and make it available, since rogue is kinda sad.


If you're going to acknowledge that, just give the ability to find and disarm traps both mundane and magical to any class deemed sufficiently skillful and any character with the appropriate skill modifiers belonging to one of those classes.

Or even, y'know, everyone by just making it part of the base skill system. :smalltongue:


In truth I agree with this, T2 and T1 classes are really only a problem if you have a jerkish/immature player.

Or a bunch of new players and one of them playing a T1 or T2 just happens to figure out how to use the potential of their character. Not a guarantee and I can't speak to the probabilities without some actual hard data, but it is within the realm of possibility.


But I thought I'd supply the T3/T4 list regardless since it's pretty hard to go wrong with those guys.

Indeed!

[Ssalarn]

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate your entire build. It might invalidate one feat or one spell, but then you just go cast something else. Because you're still a wizard.

I'm just not seeing the problem here. If one particular spell or feat is causing issues in the campaign, then the DM should just ban that when he's seen the problem. That doesn't mean you need a lengthy ban list in advance.

Unless I spent feats, spells, and traits all building towards some big trick, like Merciful Dazing Admixtured fireballs. In the mounted warrior's case you're talking 4+ feats, maybe a class level dip, skill points, etc. basically an entire build.

You don't know what you don't know, and that's the point. It's why earlier in the thread I asked the OP what, in his opinion, would be a game-breaking ability, because then it's easier to tell him what things might match that definition. I think he's trying to do a smart thing; identify problems before they become problems and nip them in the bud so it doesn't seem like he's making arbitrary or biased decisions later.

[The Insanity]

Don't ban, nerf fix so it works.

[Milo v3]

I currently only ban stuff in PF for thematic reasons if they clash with the setting, since my players are at the optimization level where they play as blasty-wizards and barbarian is seen as the power-house of the group.

[animevacker1045]

My ideal balance point is Tier 3-4.

[Forrestfire]

Then you would probably be best-off combining the 3pp suggestions and classes listed in this thread as relatively safe.

[nyjastul69]

What's with these mega huge ban lists?

Don't ban anything. If something gets too strong, deal with it then. Say this group is low/mid/high op at the start. Wizards are balanced until the players start splitting hairs on RAW rules, or starts copying some OP online thing.

I haven't read further than this post. I agree with the above. There is no reason to ban things until they become a problem. When they do, deal with those issues on a case by case basis. There really is no reason to swing a ban hammer before a campaign starts. Discuss what levels of optimization are appropriate for the particular game and trust the players. If that should fail, fire the offending player. Bans should be considered the last option, not the first.

[Baroncognito]

My GM banned blindsense because it's just so unclear about what it actually does. I mean, it says "Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature."

But when you get blindsense from Draconic Bloodline, it doesn't ever actually say what senses it actually relies upon. Even if you go to dragons to find out, it just says "Dragon Senses (Ex): Dragons have darkvision 120 ft. and blindsense 60 ft. They see four times as well as a human in dim light and twice as well in normal light."

Does it work underwater? Does it work if I'm in an area of magical silence?

I know where creatures if I have line of effect to the creature. Constructs are apparently creatures, so I should be able to sense a construct if I'm unable to see it? What about a statue? If there's a construct and a statue that looks identical to said statue in a room together both within 15 feet of me and I have 30' blindsense, does that mean I know where the construct is but not the statue? Can I tell the difference between the two if neither is moving?

Can I detect things other than creatures? If you're blind is there some sort of perception check you can make to know where a wall is without having to run into it?


The DM let me continue with this character until the end of the campaign but decided not to allow blindsense in future campaigns because it just had too many unanswered questions associated with it.

But looking at the rules, I wonder how the game would manage playing with an entirely blind party or an entirely deaf party.

[Barstro]

There is no reason to ban things until they become a problem.

While that is a great theory, it is often the people that created the problem that get upset when you try to "fix" the problem. That combo might be the only reason they wanted to play that class in the first place, they might feel that you are singling them out. EDIT: To put it another way, players who would gladly fix the problem would be more likely to not allow it to be a problem in the first place and tone it back a bit.

It can be difficult to pause the game to review (and argue about) the rules and then say "nope, we cannot do that now." Banning in the first place allows the player to not waste time on an idea that won't work later.

[Psyren]

My GM banned blindsense because it's just so unclear about what it actually does. I mean, it says "Blindsense lets a creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight. The creature with blindsense usually does not need to make Perception checks to notice and locate creatures within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature."

But when you get blindsense from Draconic Bloodline, it doesn't ever actually say what senses it actually relies upon. Even if you go to dragons to find out, it just says "Dragon Senses (Ex): Dragons have darkvision 120 ft. and blindsense 60 ft. They see four times as well as a human in dim light and twice as well in normal light."

Does it work underwater? Does it work if I'm in an area of magical silence?

I know where creatures if I have line of effect to the creature. Constructs are apparently creatures, so I should be able to sense a construct if I'm unable to see it? What about a statue? If there's a construct and a statue that looks identical to said statue in a room together both within 15 feet of me and I have 30' blindsense, does that mean I know where the construct is but not the statue? Can I tell the difference between the two if neither is moving?

Can I detect things other than creatures? If you're blind is there some sort of perception check you can make to know where a wall is without having to run into it?


The DM let me continue with this character until the end of the campaign but decided not to allow blindsense in future campaigns because it just had too many unanswered questions associated with it.

Draconomicon 17, "Dragon Senses:"

"One outstanding example of a dragon's sensory prowess is its blind sense - the ability to "see" things that are invisible or completely obscured. By using its nose and ears, and also by noticing subtle clues such as air currents and vibrations, a dragon can sense everything in its immediate vicinity, even with its eyes closed, when shrouded in magical darkness, or when swathed in impenetrable fog. Of course, some phenomena are entirely visual in nature (such as color), and a dragon that cannot see cannot perceive these phenomena."

The answer to your question is simple - to stop a dragon's blindsense, you either need to use something that specifically targets that ability, to block/impede multiple of its standard senses simultaneously (merely blinding it won't help), or block line of effect entirely.


While that is a great theory, it is often the people that created the problem that get upset when you try to "fix" the problem. That combo might be the only reason they wanted to play that class in the first place, they might feel that you are singling them out. EDIT: To put it another way, players who would gladly fix the problem would be more likely to not allow it to be a problem in the first place and tone it back a bit.

It can be difficult to pause the game to review (and argue about) the rules and then say "nope, we cannot do that now." Banning in the first place allows the player to not waste time on an idea that won't work later.

Honestly, someone who gets upset about attempts to fix a problem instead of working with the DM is someone I probably don't want to be playing with anyway. And if that's the case, better if we find out at level 8 than 5 months into the campaign.

[jjcrpntr]

While that is a great theory, it is often the people that created the problem that get upset when you try to "fix" the problem. That combo might be the only reason they wanted to play that class in the first place, they might feel that you are singling them out. EDIT: To put it another way, players who would gladly fix the problem would be more likely to not allow it to be a problem in the first place and tone it back a bit.

It can be difficult to pause the game to review (and argue about) the rules and then say "nope, we cannot do that now." Banning in the first place allows the player to not waste time on an idea that won't work later.

I'm playing in a game now (only 1 session in) but I made a cloistered cleric that was being built towards taking the knowledge devotion feat. I asked the dm about it and he said he thought it was a pretty cheesy feat.

We came to the compromise that I'd use it for a few levels and if it was still bugging him i'd retrain out of it but he'd let me rebuild the character as the build was around getting knowledges maxed out for that feat.

I try to not 'nerf" things mid game.Though if my players show up with something that i think is super cheesy I'm not afraid to ask them to do something else. By and large they are pretty cool with it.

[animevacker1045]

A list of spells,feats,traits and psionic powers that that are generally considered overpowered would be nice.

[Vhaidara]

A list of spells and feats and traits that that are generally considered overpowered would be nice.

Traits: The closest thing to an OP Trait I can think of is the one that all Magi take with Shocking Grasp.
Feats: Sacred Geometry, if only because taking it (which you can do multiple times) grants you two metamagic feats
Spells: The reason we recommended banning entire classes is because there are a lot of OP spells on their lists. I would say about half of Conjuration, Divination (when used right) and Transmutation could be considered pretty OP

[Elricaltovilla]

A list of spells and feats and traits that that are generally considered overpowered would be nice.

As far as traits, the only really OP trait I can think of is Finding Haleen, AKA Finding Your Kin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/legacy-of-fire/finding-haleen) as it essentially triples your Favored Class Bonus (especially nasty with humans and their extra skill point per level) and probably the Rich Parents (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/rich-parents) or other GP increasing traits (definitely don't allow stacking them). The GP traits are really only good at 1st or 2nd level, where they can give you a leg up and let you start with a magic item or some masterwork equipment.

As for spells, the standard ones from 3.5 are still pretty bad. Shapechange got better because most of the polymorph stuff has been fixed. Freedom of Movement can cause issues, as can Mindblank (although its much less potent). Wish and Miracle remain broken but they're Wish and Miracle, so I don't know what anyone expects. Teleportation spells can theoretically ruin games pretty quickly if you want to control where your players go or how they get there, but most people I know of use them to just skip the walking back portion of the post-quest deadlines. I'm sure there are others that I've missed.

One thing I really want to stress class wise is that I think you should seriously consider banning the Summoner Class. Its real power is kind of counter intuitive, but spamming the Summon Monster line of spells (and Gate at high levels) means that you can easily have an army of minions on the field in no time. While this isn't necessarily overpowered, it slows the game down to an absolute crawl and it will make the summoner's turn take forever in addition to clogging up the game board. Especially note the Master Summoner for this issue.

[Vhaidara]

One thing I really want to stress class wise is that I think you should seriously consider banning the Summoner Class.

My recommendation is instead to just remove the Summon Monster ability from the class. I know that sounds like it would break it from the identity of a Summoner, but the identity of the class comes from the Eidolon, not the swarms of summoned minions.

[Ssalarn]

One thing I really want to stress class wise is that I think you should seriously consider banning the Summoner Class. Its real power is kind of counter intuitive, but spamming the Summon Monster line of spells (and Gate at high levels) means that you can easily have an army of minions on the field in no time. While this isn't necessarily overpowered, it slows the game down to an absolute crawl and it will make the summoner's turn take forever in addition to clogging up the game board. Especially note the Master Summoner for this issue.

Summoner is pretty much the class most likely to piss off the other players at the table. It's got this whole "I can do anything you can do better" thing going on, or as I like to call it "**** you syndrome".
Job calls for a skill monkey? **** you rogues, evolution surge! Now I'm better than you.
Job calls for a damage dealer or tank? **** you everybody else, summon eidolon!
Job calls for a controller or buffer? **** you other casters, I get the best spells in the game, and I get them first!

It's like Jason Buhlman was using a combination of cocaine and whiskey to make it through crunch time and the high energy, inebriated demon inhabiting his body decided to take all the bile he'd accumulated in his life up to that point and transform it into game mechanics designed to undermine that which he loved most. I think cold medicine was also involved.

[Elricaltovilla]

Summoner is pretty much the class most likely to piss off the other players at the table. It's got this whole "I can do anything you can do better" thing going on, or as I like to call it "**** you syndrome".
Job calls for a skill monkey? **** you rogues, evolution surge! Now I'm better than you.
Job calls for a damage dealer or tank? **** you everybody else, summon eidolon!
Job calls for a controller or buffer? **** you other casters, I get the best spells in the game, and I get them first!

It's like Jason Buhlman was using a combination of cocaine and whiskey to make it through crunch time and the high energy, inebriated demon inhabiting his body decided to take all the bile he'd accumulated in his life up to that point and transform it into game mechanics designed to undermine that which he loved most. I think cold medicine was also involved.

You have some really interesting insights into the writing process there...

There are just all kinds of issues with the summoner, but it really does boil down to just being able to do everything as good or better than any other class, in the same way as that class does it. Really its the amount of time that the summoner takes up that makes it ban worthy to me. It just isn't fun to sit there for twenty minutes (minimum) while one player goes through all eleven billion actions they get to take each turn.

[Kurald Galain]

A list of spells,feats,traits and psionic powers that that are generally considered overpowered would be nice.

Bear in mind that most of the game is going to play at low level. Most campaigns start somewhere between 1 and 5, and last to somewhere between 8 and 12. That means that if a ninth level spell is overpowered, well, that's great and we can have fun arguing about it on the forums, but it won't impact your actual game any.

So is there any low-level or moderate-level stuff that is overpowered at those levels? Well, the following comes to mind...

The summoner, as pointed out above.
Those two metamagic reducer traits, as pointed out above. Yes, that's also the Magus trick mentioned a few posts up.
Glitterdust, as it's basically a big-area long-range no-SR save-or-lose spell that comes online at level 3 (where everything else is still single-target or yes-SR or save-or-suck).
Certain animal companions, basically anything with high strength and multiple attacks at low level.
Note that you can pretty much combine all of the previous four on the same character, if you're so inclined.
Natural attacks in general. A level-5 character with three to five primary naturals with either rage or sneak attack does silly amounts of damage for that level.
The witch's slumber hex. The rest of the class is fine though, at least until the level where all primary casters become problematic.



Something that I like to use is the "Barbarian standard". At low to moderate levels, consider a barbarian with maxed out strength, the biggest weapon you can find, rage, and power attack (that's 19.5 damage at level 1, count up from there). If a character deals more average damage than that, well, chances are it's going to step on somebody's toes at the table.

[Barstro]

The witch's slumber hex.

I disagree with this. Not because it's wrong, but because it is easily countered. If a DM is going by the module then, sure, it can be broken. But all that needs to be done is make the enemies immune (Witch is now useless at low levels), or add one more enemy to the fight. Witch takes two turns to knock one out and the rest of the party deals with everyone else.

[squiggit]

Personal philosophy is don't ban anything talk to players about what they're doing.

That aside: Leadership. Sacred Geometry.... Those are the best things in the game.

I can't really agree with the gigantic ban lists so many people are suggesting. Seems way overkill. Even the people talking about banning the summoner seem more like they have personal issues against the class than anything else. I'd rather play an arcanist most of the time anyways.

[(Un)Inspired]

As far as traits, the only really OP trait I can think of is Finding Haleen, AKA Finding Your Kin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/legacy-of-fire/finding-haleen) as it essentially triples your Favored Class Bonus (especially nasty with humans and their extra skill point per level)

I always though find your kin was good but not particularly broken. Especially against human sorcerer and half elf summoner FC options.


Summoner is pretty much the class most likely to piss off the other players at the table. It's got this whole "I can do anything you can do better" thing going on, or as I like to call it "**** you syndrome".
Job calls for a skill monkey? **** you rogues, evolution surge! Now I'm better than you.
Job calls for a damage dealer or tank? **** you everybody else, summon eidolon!
Job calls for a controller or buffer? **** you other casters, I get the best spells in the game, and I get them first!

It's like Jason Buhlman was using a combination of cocaine and whiskey to make it through crunch time and the high energy, inebriated demon inhabiting his body decided to take all the bile he'd accumulated in his life up to that point and transform it into game mechanics designed to undermine that which he loved most. I think cold medicine was also involved.

Hey Hey Hey! There's plenty wrong with the summoner but don't blame cocaine and Whiskey for Buhlman's mistakes!

[Coidzor]

Feats: Sacred Geometry, if only because taking it (which you can do multiple times) grants you two metamagic feats

Also because it's either a pain in the ass to use or has tool-assisted solutions obviating its limitations. :smalltongue:

[Forrestfire]

Here's the informal proof (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17879295&postcount=110) for Sacred Geometry :smalltongue:

That feat is just silly.

[deuxhero]

Glitterdust, as it's basically a big-area long-range no-SR save-or-lose spell that comes online at level 3 (where everything else is still single-target or yes-SR or save-or-suck).


PF allows a new save everyround for Glitterdust.

Now Pyrotechnics, which everyone overlooked in 3.5 because "Glitterdust is strictly better"...

[(Un)Inspired]

PF allows a new save everyround for Glitterdust.

Now Pyrotechnics, which everyone overlooked in 3.5 because "Glitterdust is strictly better"...

Hmmm never noticed that about pyrotechnics before.

Looks like Dazing spell burning gaze finally has some company on my list of fire spells I'd ever cast.

Excellent!

[Shadowscale]

If I may ask why are classes like the fighter and ranger banned? Are they too good too bad? Wouldn't you consider it a bad thing to force al players to be the same power level even if they wanted to play something less complicated example a fighter compared to the path of war classes.

[Forrestfire]

Mostly because overall, they're fairly weak, or both weak and incredibly badly-designed. Personally, if a player wants to play a "simple" class, I point them to the Barbarian, with refluffing as needed. Fighter, like Monk is deceptively complex, and requires a huge amount of system mastery to make work beyond a baseline of "is pretty mediocre."

Barbarian, on the other hand, is pretty good right out of the box. Rage rounds are needlessly fiddly, imo, but overall, it's much easier to build one and much simpler to play on than it is to do so for Fighters.

[Kurald Galain]

I disagree with this. Not because it's wrong, but because it is easily countered. If a DM is going by the module then, sure, it can be broken. But all that needs to be done is make the enemies immune (Witch is now useless at low levels), or add one more enemy to the fight. Witch takes two turns to knock one out and the rest of the party deals with everyone else.
Slumber takes only one round. On the second round, the heavy hitter coup-de-graces the slumbered creature while the witch targets the next one.



That aside: Leadership. Sacred Geometry....
I agree these should be banned.


PF allows a new save everyround for Glitterdust.
True, but if you crank your DC high enough and/or use Persistent, that doesn't actually matter.


Now Pyrotechnics, which everyone overlooked in 3.5 because "Glitterdust is strictly better"...
That strikes me as highly situational, since you need to target an existing fire. Most combats don't have one.


If I may ask why are classes like the fighter and ranger banned?
I haven't seen anyone ban the ranger. The fighter is decent at dealing damage but it can't do anything else. At all. Even the barb is more versatile.

[Barstro]

Slumber takes only one round. On the second round, the heavy hitter coup-de-graces the slumbered creature while the witch targets the next one.

Slumber takes one round, but missing with it wastes that round. Better to use Evil Eye; Saving Throws first to make it much more likely to land.
I agree with your stance, I just don't think Slumber is any worse than other Save-or-Suck. I wound up using it quite rarely, but that could be because it was overpowered and I grew bored with it.

If we are banning Witch things, get rid of Ice Tomb. That has twice the range of Slumber and gets rid of the need for coups-de-grace. Its only saving grace is that it illogically does not work on objects.

In the end, this should be less about banning and more about DM and players agreeing on concepts and what can be done. I trust most DMs enough to tell them what I expect my character to do from level 1 to 20 and have them not "cheat" later due to the knowledge. I'd have no problem with a DM saying early on "your combo at level 15+ will be too powerful; either redo things or limit that combo to once per day".

[PsyBomb]

Banning is needed for some players. For others like myself, a simple "only in emergencies " will suffice.

[deuxhero]

That strikes me as highly situational, since you need to target an existing fire. Most combats don't have one.

Depends on
1: Lighting being enforced
2: Everyone not having a fancy magic flameless light

A bullseye lantern also helps a lot: You have line of sight to the fire source without having LoS to the fire itself and have a nice 120 foot cone of blindness.

PF also introduced Burst of Radiance. Its duration isn't as consistent, but it has (a really minor) effect on a successful save and will also damage evil creatures regardless of save (plus it's a cleric/druid spell too)

[Ssalarn]

Banning is needed for some players. For others like myself, a simple "only in emergencies " will suffice.

This sums it up pretty well. Banning isn't a tool for troublesome mechanics, it's a tool for troublesome players. I personally haven't had to ban anything in a home game in a long time thanks to the good fortune I've had with the friends I play with. They're generally more likely to come to me and say "Mike, is this really as crazy broken as I think it is?" than they are to try and work the angle on a poorly worded or blatantly imbalanced mechanic.