What don't you allow into your game? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Afgncaap5

2016-07-06, 05:48 PM

I'm really weird about stuff like this, because most ludicrous power optimization tricks technically exist in my game world, but only as obscure effects that have somehow gotten around my game world's magical "Law of Diminishing Returns." Case in point, the d2 Crusader isn't allowed... unless you're a member of a very specific brotherhood of gnomes, kobolds, and halflings who wears a very particular amulet of the ability that gets the d2 crusader trick to work (can't recall the name), and has the appropriate levels in Cleric to represent the "zen" of this order's beliefs. And frankly, even with Cleric levels, most PCs won't fit the zen even if they have the Cleric levels due to the standard motivations of adventurers (though there are, of course, exceptions.)

The upshot is that I can disallow and allow things for story purposes... it's fun to have the evil member of the brotherhood who stole the amulet believing it would grant him power slowly growing more furious as his punches, while technically more powerful than normal, just aren't vaporizing things like he thinks they should, for instance. Having said that, just off the top of my head...

1) I don't allow the Chaos Shuffle because, well, ignoring how many ridiculous options it opens up, I don't want to explain to players what effect this has on their psyche and alignment and how I expect it to affect roleplaying, and only one or two of my players are up for that, I think, most only looking at it as a way to quickly get a desired mechanical result. I might be persuaded to allow it for certain players in certain situations, but I've so rarely had players of high enough level that it's not really been an issue before.

2) d2 Crusader, as stated above.

3) For a single player to be more than three "rare" classes in a single game if their characters die or if they retire a character. This is more for my own sanity, I admit, but it *does* stretch believeability when the party can run into six or seven swordsages in a given month, all from different secluded and secretive orders.

4) "Can't I just say in my backstory that I hired a wizard to create an alternate dimension of variable time-rules to craft an item out of adamantine?!" No. No, that's when you meet astral pirates who specifically look for rich and unprotected wizards who think they're safe from harm in their brand new dimensions, and you'll have to play that out in real time while the rest of the adventure is on hold.

4b) Adamantium: I like it in small doses, but players being able to outfit themselves with lots of it at character creation is something I try to limit. Not that a Fighter or Paladin shouldn't be able to have a mace or suit of armor made out of it, and not that the Rogue shouldn't have an emergency dagger-that-can-cut-almost-anything, but rare and exotic materials are, well... rare and exotic. Most adamantium only shows up when an asteroid hits the world, so it's hard to have a huge stockpile of it that dwarves are ready and eager to make for you.

5) "Ice Assassins Of An Aleax Of Myself": Ah-hahahaha, no. No, no. Players don't want this in my games. You can't make an ice assassin out of something that doesn't exist yet since you need a portion of the creature you're making the assassin out of, and an aleax of yourself won't exist until you make some god angry enough that they send one for you. Creating one means that you've apparently already infuriated a god beyond what a typical evil wizard or demon does (something that most players won't include in their backstory or be willing to roleplay), and that you're willing to lure the creature to you so that you can acquire a piece of it. My interpretation of the Singular Enemy ability means you can't even have a proxy sneak up on one to clip a bit of its hair (this is, admittedly, up for interpretation as to whether or not it "harms" or "hinders" it, but I feel it's valid.) Also, you need to get this piece of it without killing it since killing it will cause it and its equipment to vanish. Since there's already an angry god in play, a player who gets an Aleax to exist, personally gets a piece of it without killing it, takes the time to finish constructing an ice sculpture while the Aleax is already alive, and then animates it, the player had better be *really* sure that there won't be divine interference that makes this living invincible statue just decide to attack the player anyway since deific magic has a way of trumping such things. This isn't "forbidden" in my games so much as it's a case of wondering how much rope to allow players to hang themselves with. Having said that, a sufficiently powerful wizard's player might earn a single Ice Assassin Aleax of themselves as a prize for good roleplaying, but a player's almost certainly not going to be getting one of their own through use of the rules about ice assassins and aleaxes as written.

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-06, 06:12 PM

I've seen a lot of Dungeon Masters completely opposed to dragon magazine and putting a ban band-aid over the whole product.

Troacctid

2016-07-06, 06:16 PM

I don't allow spells above 6th level. High-level spells are blatantly overpowered, and I prefer the game without them. In my games, they're considered epic magic and require the Epic Spellcasting feat—and since I don't run epic campaigns, that makes them the sole domain of NPCs and artifacts.

I don't allow level adjustments greater than +1 because they are a trap, and in the rare cases where they're not a trap, it's because they're something like the Shadow template with no business being on a player character.

I actually do not ban Polymorph, but I do restrict it (and similar effects) to creatures that are in the SRD. This has the threefold benefit of bringing it down to a more reasonable power level, making it MUCH easier to reference, and cutting down dramatically on the homework players have to do to optimize it.

I generally exclude Dragon Magazine material from my games because of how difficult it is to reference. But I've recently acquired a stack of back issues, and I'm starting to read through them, so I might change that rule, maybe, I dunno.

It's not a hard ban, but it would take convincing in order for me to approve an evil PC. It's very easy for an evil character to conflict with the campaign objective or with the rest of the party.

I ban the following feats: Epic Toughness (because outlier HP totals make balanced encounter design impossible), Greenbound Summoning (overpowered), Item Familiar (overpowered), Leadership (overpowered and a pain in the neck to deal with), Linked Power (overpowered...or should I say linked powered? ...No, nothing? Okay.), Persistent Spell (overpowered), and Precocious Apprentice (because I'd rather my players pick an early entry trick that actually works).

Craft Contingent Spells
Honestly, I think contingent spells are fine. They're consumable and fairly expensive to use on a regular basis, and feat slots at that level have a high opportunity cost.

4b) Adamantium: I like it in small doses, but players being able to outfit themselves with lots of it at character creation is something I try to limit. Not that a Fighter or Paladin shouldn't be able to have a mace or suit of armor made out of it, and not that the Rogue shouldn't have an emergency dagger-that-can-cut-almost-anything, but rare and exotic materials are, well... rare and exotic. Most adamantium only shows up when an asteroid hits the world, so it's hard to have a huge stockpile of it that dwarves are ready and eager to make for you.
Well yeah, adamantine is rare, but that's reflected in its cost. You're paying a pretty hefty premium for it. That alone should prevent a player from loading up with adamantine everything at character creation, right?

Afgncaap5

2016-07-06, 06:29 PM

Well yeah, adamantine is rare, but that's reflected in its cost. You're paying a pretty hefty premium for it. That alone should prevent a player from loading up with adamantine everything at character creation, right?

Oh, generally, yes. And like I said, I'm okay with it being available for purchase for those with the cash required. But if a player's entire backstory involves communities that frankly wouldn't have the resources and every single piece of equipment is outfitted with it, then there are some difficulties.

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-06, 06:54 PM

With that in mind, I too don't allow for things similarly in my worlds. There is no magical Walmart. That is a big NO

ngilop

2016-07-06, 08:35 PM

Guns and psionics are the two biggest "No's" and yes, guns also include steampunk nonsense and trying to use real rorld physics to try to 'cheat' at D&D.

No factotums

No 'weird' races.. like cat girls and things I feel are not standard fantasy faire (if we are playing in my game world and not published one

Other than those 2, I try to keep a gentlemen's agreement (like this http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267097-The-Gentlemen-s-Agreement-making-it-more-precise)

I expect my player's to behave and not be massive jerks, remember that this is a game that you are supposed to have a good time with friends with.. not bust out some crazy tippy-esque nigh infinite damage shenanigans. No that tippy does it, but I just relate insane levels of optimization with Tippy.

Beheld

2016-07-06, 09:00 PM

I play with enough complete system rewrite houserules (durations, metamagic, wealth, ect.) that a lot of things aren't problems. But I think the vast majority of the things that can't be rewritten into something that isn't a problem amounts to:

Minionmancy is banned as it related to everyday adventuring. Animate Dead, Planar Binding, Dominate, Charm + Diplomacy, Just Diplomacy, Leadership, Simulcram, Ice Assassin, ect. All the things that let you bring stuff into combat and use it in combat is just not okay. Animate Dead for a mount you ride around is fine, Druid's AC is fine, but basically, aside from that, just no.

5) "Ice Assassins Of An Aleax Of Myself": Ah-hahahaha, no. No, no. Players don't want this in my games. You can't make an ice assassin out of something that doesn't exist yet since you need a portion of the creature you're making the assassin out of, and an aleax of yourself won't exist until you make some god angry enough that they send one for you. Creating one means that you've apparently already infuriated a god beyond what a typical evil wizard or demon does (something that most players won't include in their backstory or be willing to roleplay), and that you're willing to lure the creature to you so that you can acquire a piece of it. My interpretation of the Singular Enemy ability means you can't even have a proxy sneak up on one to clip a bit of its hair (this is, admittedly, up for interpretation as to whether or not it "harms" or "hinders" it, but I feel it's valid.) Also, you need to get this piece of it without killing it since killing it will cause it and its equipment to vanish. Since there's already an angry god in play, a player who gets an Aleax to exist, personally gets a piece of it without killing it, takes the time to finish constructing an ice sculpture while the Aleax is already alive, and then animates it, the player had better be *really* sure that there won't be divine interference that makes this living invincible statue just decide to attack the player anyway since deific magic has a way of trumping such things. This isn't "forbidden" in my games so much as it's a case of wondering how much rope to allow players to hang themselves with. Having said that, a sufficiently powerful wizard's player might earn a single Ice Assassin Aleax of themselves as a prize for good roleplaying, but a player's almost certainly not going to be getting one of their own through use of the rules about ice assassins and aleaxes as written.

You know spell like abilities exist right?

Malroth

2016-07-06, 09:10 PM

Nightstick Stacking
Spell to Power Erudite
Arcane Swordsage
Magic items over 25,000 obtained via Wish
Astral Seed granting permanent alternate forms
Sarrukh.
Aleaxi.
Truenaming.

Coidzor

2016-07-06, 09:11 PM

Most forms of infinite loop are right out.

Âmesang

2016-07-06, 09:47 PM

Troll Blooded. :smalltongue: I like the idea of regional feats, but WORLD OF GREYHAWK'S® Troll Blooded is just a bag of holding (Type IV) full of "NO."

I've seen a lot of Dungeon Masters completely opposed to dragon magazine and putting a ban band-aid over the whole product.
Whether DRAGON/DUNGEON Magazine or 3.0, I've never been a big fan of "blanket bans," at least not when there's a whole slew of fun mundane items still to be had. I can understand the frustration for not having a proper reference, though, which is why I'm not too big on homebrew unless I at least have some sort of written form of it.

Stormbow

2016-07-06, 09:52 PM

I run 3.5E games in what I consider a very boring, old school way, with no prestige classes and I've virtually never used or allowed Psionics. (As for the Psionics, I think it makes the system so much cooler to restrict it entirely to Mindflayers, giving them an exceptionally cool and unique aspect of their being.)

I really haven't run into much that has attempted to ruin a game, so I haven't really had to rule out anything else. "DM has the final word.", of course.

ekarney

2016-07-06, 09:54 PM

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-06, 11:42 PM

Anyone have a problem with people trying to model their character's after a anime character? I know I see a lot of homebrew content for anime races/classes. I can't... I just can't do it. I like homebrew sometimes, but that's a big no for me if it's themed after an anime.

Necromancy

2016-07-06, 11:57 PM

1) Can we not call it "adamantium"
2) leadership is fine if you agree cohorts stay home. They make great item crafters though.
3) psionics and guns are most definitely out.
4) furries, furry characters, pedos, anything of that nature is frickin out. Yes it has come up...

Afgncaap5

2016-07-06, 11:59 PM

Any sort of TO-esque abuse which is fairly common sense.

Any system I haven't actually bothered looking into yet (Currently just Incarnum and ToB)
Eberron. I hate Eberron, Artificer's being the exception to that ban.

Do you hate Eberron's options for mechanical reasons, or flavor reasons? Or both? Or, uh... or something else entirely?

Inevitability

2016-07-07, 12:37 AM

Anything not on the same level as the other players.

You all want to play optimized tier 1's, fine with me. I'll go write up a story about how you need to kill some gods.

You want to play a dragonwrought kobold druid/wizard/arcane hierophant/mystic theurge with two swindlespitters (to be swapped out for fleshrakers later) while the others are playing a paladin, a ranger and a healbot cleric? (actually had a player suggest this) Go build something appropriate.

rrwoods

2016-07-07, 01:01 AM

Incantatrix
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
Leadership

These are the only things "explicitly" banned in my game. DCFS and other combos simply don't come up because the players aren't looking for them. Most players in my groups don't even know what embrace the dark chaos is at all, for example.

EDIT: and if they did, I'd solve the problem with errata to the spell, not banning the combo. (Is replacing one actually selected feat powerful? Yeah. But I don't think it's overpowered at spell level 8 unless you're doing racial feat cheese.)

ekarney

2016-07-07, 01:01 AM

Do you hate Eberron's options for mechanical reasons, or flavor reasons? Or both? Or, uh... or something else entirely?

My opinions on eberron:

Pros:
Artificers
Mechanical

Cons:
It seems the whole "Everyone except the players is level 3 at highest save for a handful of people" is heavily enforced. But that's easily negated.
Flavour, honestly I find the flavour very WoWish I guess, I've played games in it, I've read through a few of the splatbooks, I just find it all very irritating presumeably since it doesn't have the 20-30 years of development and as such ideas that FR has. I dunno, Eberron's one of those things that I just don't like the flavour of.

Troacctid

2016-07-07, 01:27 AM

Nightsticks, plural

Incantrix
Stacking Nightsticks (which I personally see as RAW)

Nightstick Stacking

Incantatrix
Are these really a problem if you ban Persistent Spell? Without DMM: Persist, nightstick stacking seems unimpressive, and while I realize Incantatrix does some good stuff for a mailman, that takes a ton of investment and doesn't come online until very late in the game.

Spell to Power Erudite
I don't see what's overpowered about this one. You gain some extra spells off other lists, but you have to pay XP for them, you can't cast any all-day buffs, and most of your utility spells are only really usable during downtime. It's basically like an artificer, except instead of getting everything two levels earlier, you get everything two levels later. I bet you could allow it and nobody would even want to play it over a regular psion.

I mean, the ACF is clearly better than what it replaces, so in that sense, it's unbalanced, but by that logic you'd also ban educated wilder and ectopic ally divine mind. Seems unnecessary.

tiercel

2016-07-07, 01:54 AM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0

Basically, this.

In practice, I apply the Anthropic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) to D&D: any build, spell, combo or technique that would break the world (make the campaign world unable to exist in its current form) in the hands of an already-higher-level NPC/BBEG is out, less by overt banhammer and more by virtue of my laying out to my players what it is likely to mean for the world/game if it is allowed.

Malroth

2016-07-07, 02:39 AM

I disallow nightstick stacking because I EXPECT DMM persist and if they want enough turning attempts for more than one spell they're going to have to sink feats into it.

I don't like spell to power Erudite because They can pull off all the psion Infinite PP tricks and apply it to all the spells from all the classes at the same time.

NapazTrix

2016-07-07, 04:25 AM

I normally allow 1 Summon + 1 Companion + 1 Mount + 1 Cohort, if you use a new summon spell the ones from the previous go home and you pull out some new ones.
Book of Erotic Fantasies, because there are other games/sites for that kind of thing and I don't really want to RP that. Relationships and sex in D&D are fine, but I do try to speed it up, the lads don't need much help in that area though ;)

Most of the time I ban Druid, though I give reasoning due to the world and setting, I prefer to control the Gods in my games, not have my PC's play gods.
Looping effects/infinite effects besides Permanency. You can work out persistent spell for 24 hour effects.

Character Knowledge over Player Knowledge, if a character just says "This enemy is weak to fire, or immune to poison" without any sort of roll, or class association, I will slap them on the head and say no.

I do allow players to fight each other, but they won't get exp unless they want to fight to the death and it is an actual battle not a spar.
If your character dies, you will be kept to the same ruling that players had at session 1, for LA, items etc, besides Level and Wealth. I normally give them less then max gold, since they should be getting that during the game, not from mysterious inheritance.

If you make a roll, enact an action, move your token for a view you can't go back, that has happened and you need to live with it.

I don't allow rolls against other party members, for example diplomacy, it's up to the role-play of the characters if they believe each other. They can only roll for thievery or attacking, however the rest of the party get spots (Though I roll them to keep the mystery).

There is no 1 person who speaks for the party, if a "leader" says something, then a character does something else then it's down to that individual what happens to them. There are some acceptions to that ruling, but for the majority every character is an individual trying to work to a common goal in their own way.

Besides those specifics, if it's overpowered I will talk to the player to work around it and ground him to the party. If not I either take away their power or their ability to continue playing the game. This is a group game, not a single-player adventure.

Telonius

2016-07-07, 05:36 AM

I disallow nightstick stacking because I EXPECT DMM persist and if they want enough turning attempts for more than one spell they're going to have to sink feats into it.

That's about half of it for me as well. The other half is that it just seems cheesy to try to twist stacking rules like that. There are lots of things you can do with Turn attempts besides just DMM Persist. Multiple nightsticks takes what's supposed to be a pretty limited daily resource and makes all of those options a lot stronger, for a price that's way too low.

Zale

2016-07-07, 06:40 AM

D&D 3.5 :smalltongue:

I mean this in complete seriousness. While it's the first edition I was able to play, and it holds a special place in my heart, you could not force me at knife-point to run a game with it.

This thread alone gives you a plethora of reasons. Running 3.5 in a way that would be satisfying for me and my play group would require such overarching changes that I would be better off making my own game based on the OGL.

BearonVonMu

2016-07-07, 10:17 AM

Most things fall under "ask first" and "don't abuse". -snip-
This is a great summary of my table's allowed list.
I tend to run games where I want my players to be as powerful as they can be. However far up the scale they go, I will follow. If the party starts flinging save-or-die spells around, villains will as well. I personally don't think it is fun to have a single die roll be able to kill or incapacitate a player. "Oh, I rolled low and will be spending the next forty five minutes running in fear." It leads to a player pulling out a phone or tablet so they don't get bored. So I generally tell them that they will be the initiators of the parts of the game I think are un-fun.
I would caution them against infinite loops, but if they pushed it, they would encounter someone who had done the same loop but started years ago.

Willie the Duck

2016-07-07, 11:43 AM

The word "RAW" covers most of it.

Seriously, it's fine in theoretical forum discussions, but otherwise no. Me and my players can successfully figure out that the Beholder Mage was clearly intended to stack onto a CR 13 monster, and trying to weasel into qualifying for it on technicalities is just that, being a weasel. Likewise for about half of the abuses and failings in the system.

The other half of what we find makes 3.5 a problem is the tiering between classes, and that's a totally real thing even without abuse. It's frustratingly hard to make a fighter feel useful after level 8 or so in a universe with druids and wizards (unless the druids and wizards play shillelagh druid and fireball wizard). That requires gentlemen's agreements about playing at the same level of OP, and that's subjective.

Other than that, not much. We discovered DMM, clerics, and nightsticks back when LM came out, someone did it, we all had a good laugh about how messed up it was, and no one has been foolish enough to do again. Same with Hulking Hurler back in 3.0. After years of no one playing a druid and taking Natural Spell, we all agreed that it should be rebuilt as a metamagic feat that raises spell level by 2, so it's just a feat-cheaper way of taking still spell, silent spell, and eschew spell components for your druid.

Chronikoce

2016-07-07, 02:07 PM

I honestly gave up on banning specifics and run my current game with just a gentleman's agreement.

The only regret I have is allowing a factotum in. Not because it's OP but because the player is really bad at optimizing and often ends up being useless for anything that isn't a skill check. Oh also because it's so badly written and a headache to deal with.

Oh I do ban psionics in current game for two reasons
1) I've never read the rules
2) They don't fit the world's theme

Sagetim

2016-07-07, 03:04 PM

Being that I'm generally the one at my gaming table who reads rulebooks for fun, my ban list is a big easier and lighter than some of these seem to be. I have a few rules, the first of which is: You have to be able to role play it.

wanna play a minion mancy necromancer? that's fine, but you have to keep track of their hp, gear initiative, and so on. And you need to be ready for your character to face scrutiny if he/she rolls into town with a phalanx of skeleton guardsmen backing them up.

Do you want to play a class that basically doesn't exist in the setting? That's fine, you can even be the first of your class in the game. This gives you a chance to set the stage for how the setting will view that class for time to come. It also means that there are going to be a grand total of zero magic or psionic items already made for your class specifically. If you're the first psion, that means no crystal capacitors, no dorje's, no psicrowns, etc. If you're the first sword sage, then there's probably not going to be any slippers of shadow hand. Also, no, you can't be the first of any player's handbook class....except maybe monk.

I suppose a second rule of 'you have to know how it works and why' would also apply. This means that if you're going to come to the character optimization boards here and get help building your character, that's fine...but you still have to know how it works personally, not just be copying down the build that someone suggested here.

And as a third rule: don't be a jerk, as a player. If your character is an unctious roustabout, that's fine. But you, as a person and as a player, don't need to be. And since I generally want the players in any game I'm running to be role playing, being able to one shot anything in the game isn't so much of a problem. Ultimately you're going to need other solutions to problems than 'hit it really hard' or 'make it die'. That's not a challenge for you to try and solve all problems with mighty fist.

Edit: You have to run your build by me before we start/before you start playing the character. This means that, while you might be running an evil jedi consular side by side the another party member running a leaping warblade, I need to know what your classes and build are before hand so that a) I am not caught off guard as a DM as to your capabilities and b) so that we can all make sure no shenanigans are afoot. Doing this also means that I can determine any interactions that need to be known ahead of time (like magic - psionics transparency for example). In that same vein, when you level up your new capabilities are not a secret from me as a DM. You can be sure that npcs are going to be impressed by a lightsaber and being able to throw lightning from your hands, but as a DM I'm going to know generally what kind of damage output to expect from these things and if any adjustments are made to encounters they can be made by an in character reaction to said 'unprecedented abilities'.

Some things I do specifically allow or use in my game include:
no xp cost for crafting items. I loathe xp costs on crafting items, and you'll see in a moment what I do instead:
I grant quest xp, story xp, and job xp in addition to fighting xp. I enjoyed a particular idea from the 2nd edition ADND DMG, where each class earns xp for doing things related to it so I adapt that idea for whatever system I am running. This means that clerics and other faith based casters will gain xp from casting spells in support of or furthering the cause of their faith. Mages and other wizard types will gain xp for learning spells, researching new spells, and crafting magic items. Fighter types will gain xp from training, sparring, and combat related endeaors, while rogue types will earn xp for being sneaky, engaging in acts of subterfuge, including stealing things from non-party members.
That said, xp gains are split among the party. Because having one person who just rolled over the edge to the next highest level can throw off an encounter pretty badly, or having one person lagging behind can be deadly for them. Which is another reason not to have xp costs on making magic items.
The party will have to make their own magic items after a certain point. This is because most worlds I run don't have magic shops stocked with a variety of magical items ranging from +1 to +whatever. In most worlds I run you aren't going to find even a +1 weapon for sale unless the seller has hit upon hard times and needs cash fast, at which point you're going to have to haggle for the price. This generally doesn't come up as a problem that often because I will tend to sprinkle appropriate weapon, armor, or what have you upgrades on encounters so that the players can loot their Needs*. (though in one campaign it was more a matter of letting them use the bones of their enemies as crafting components by assigning them a value and range of what could be made with them. The settlement they were building was soon armed with guards who had +1 ogre bone spears and +1 ogre bone armor).

*This means that you will get a weapon you are proficient with at the right bonus, or if you have weapon focus and significant feat investment, one that fits with that. No guarantees on it having elemental effects or anything though. Similar logic applies for armor: it may not be the +5 adamantine full plate that you wanted, but it could still be +5 full plate.

And while players haven't seen a need to sell magic items in games I've run, if they did they would probably have to talk to someone in the government to secure a sale at a reasonable price. Individuals just tend not to have enough cash on hand to afford magic items. Do remember that landed lords are part of the government.

Psionics is always allowed, but if it's d20 modern I'm ripping out their version of it and replacing it with a 3.5 version.

AslanCross

2016-07-07, 04:13 PM

1. Obviously broken stuff like Pun-pun.
2. I typically avoid setting-specific material (I run Eberron so if material is cannot be refluffed to fit, I don't allow it.)
3. Otherwise, ask the DM.

Arael666

2016-07-07, 05:15 PM

I allow caos shuffle, but the source of the feat still limits you options. You wanna change that fighter feat? Sure, you can only choose another fighter feat. You wanna change that metamagic feat you got on you 1st incantatrix level? Sure, you can only choose another metamagic feat. You wanna change your martial weapon proficiency that you got from being an elf? Go §#&@ yourself

Pugwampy

2016-07-07, 06:27 PM

Some dude players make a girl hero and then expect NPC girl "employer" to have a lesbian relationship with them . Heck they expect getting to third base without even dating and wooing NPC girl .

My girls are all hetro but for some reason that upsets the players .....

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-07, 08:15 PM

Erotica I would agree on not allowing. I like roleplay, but not that kind. I've dropped from a group because 10mins in their "roleplay" was what everyone else would call sexting.

Draconium

2016-07-07, 08:26 PM

1: Don't break the game.

2: Nothing sexual.

3: Complete Psionic is disallowed - this is the only book I specifically disallow.

Other than that, I'm usually okay with whatever my group would want to play. If I'm playing with a group that isn't my standard, I may impose additional restrictions, but not necessarily.

Troacctid

2016-07-07, 08:28 PM

I don't like spell to power Erudite because They can pull off all the psion Infinite PP tricks and apply it to all the spells from all the classes at the same time.
I don't think this makes infinite PP tricks any more broken than they would be on a psion. What spells are you spamming that are more broken than psionic powers?

squiggit

2016-07-07, 08:28 PM

Most things fall under "ask first" and "don't abuse".

Generally how I run things. Rather than make an exhaustive ban list I just expect my players not to ruin things. It works pretty well.

Emperor Tippy

2016-07-07, 08:47 PM

Generally Epic Spellcasting is the only thing I flat ban, but I've run games with everything from melee damage to magic items being banned. And run games where everything short of Pun-Pun is allowed.

So I'm probably not the person to ask about what I don't allow. :smalltongue:

rrwoods

2016-07-07, 10:31 PM

Are these really a problem if you ban Persistent Spell? Without DMM: Persist, nightstick stacking seems unimpressive, and while I realize Incantatrix does some good stuff for a mailman, that takes a ton of investment and doesn't come online until very late in the game.
Two things: one, I'd actually prefer not to ban Persistent Spell if possible, and two, I think Metamagic Effect is too good on its own. If you're not there for that, you're there for the capstone, and if you're there for the capstone you're breaking something.

I'll admit that my banning of Incantatrix might be kneejerk, but I've also never had a player ask about it. If I did I'd look into it much further.

In general I prefer to be as permissive as possible while maintaining a happy group. If something becomes a problem I talk about it first -- and a problem isn't a problem if it's making no one unhappy. I underestimated how much damage the five man group is putting out as a result of Dragonfire Inspiration, but that doesn't mean I'm banning it (they are having a BLAST with it!), it just means I'm giving my enemies better defenses in the future to make the fights more interesting. Small example (Damage Is Never The Issue) but it's the only "problem" I've countered.

Âmesang

2016-07-08, 06:40 AM

My girls are all hetro but for some reason that upsets the players .....
My longest running female character could probably be described as asexual; so vain, conceited, self-centered, and egotistical that nobody's good enough for her. :smalltongue: Easy means of keeping any such shenanigans from needing to crop up.

Necromancy

2016-07-08, 08:22 AM

I have a few rules, the first of which is: You have to be able to role play it.

You just invalidated 98% of all optimized builds. How dare you suggest we play the game correctly!?

If you think about it, most optimization is pure metagaming. Our table was heavy RP so you'd rarely see anything over 2 base classes and 1 prestige. Personally I like single classing.

Some dude players make a girl hero and then expect NPC girl "employer" to have a lesbian relationship with them . Heck they expect getting to third base without even dating and wooing NPC girl .

My girls are all hetro but for some reason that upsets the players .....

Perhaps your group would be happier playing some Paizo adventures. They're chock full of obnoxious LBGT pandering characters.

kellbyb

2016-07-08, 09:05 AM

Caedes

2016-07-08, 09:24 AM

I rarely ban anything in the games I run. As I like some of the other posters want to see what the players will come up with and want them to be powerful and awe inspiring.

But of course their is a caveat.

Once someone does something game-breaking, or let's say legally grey. I typically applaud them for figuring out something that makes them a god or allowed them to transcend their mortal selves.

Then I hand them a blank fresh new character sheet. The Player laughs at me. And then begins a fresh start.

One of the other things we do in our group is that we will have special one shot nights where people are encouraged to optimize beyond a reasonable point. Then we either fight the 7 big bads or have a battle royale. Or as most often times, we discuss what we did, what are the drawbacks, why these optimizations work and often times how they invalidate a normal game.

All that being said. I am lucky to have had pretty much the same D&D group for several years. We are pretty mature about this stuff. We all love to optimize. But we also like to have fun. So we optimize but for thew most part stop before game breaking. (96% of the time)

I think we got to this point not through ban hammering everything. But by discussion of these things, not just how the are OP but also how they can be used in fun not game-breaking ways.

The Insanity

2016-07-08, 10:40 AM

I don't allow people who don't understand the game.

Jeff the Green

2016-07-08, 02:32 PM

Instantaneous Ancestral Relic rebuilding
Erudites
Chaos Shuffle
Guidance of the avatar
Revenance + revivify
Bloodlines
Leadership
Intelligent items
Linked sychronicity
Dukar hand coral
Most methods of learning spells above the normal level.
BoEF. (I don't necessarily have anything against sexuality in games (though it should be fade-to-black), and I don't blanket-ban source books because of broken content. I'm just not up to looking at that godawful soft-core porn more than once in my life.)
XPH Illithid in 3.P
Vampire Lord
Aboleth mucus
Eggshell grenades
Brown mold
Dusk of sneezing and choking.

In my last recruitment thread I was tempted to ban anything that I'd originally said was allowed and someone later asked about.

Sagetim

2016-07-08, 02:47 PM

You just invalidated 98% of all optimized builds. How dare you suggest we play the game correctly!?

If you think about it, most optimization is pure metagaming. Our table was heavy RP so you'd rarely see anything over 2 base classes and 1 prestige. Personally I like single classing.

-snip-

Well, I've played and roleplayed a character that was one base class and two prestige classes before (soulknife/illumine soul/soulbow). In some cases (especially if you're limited to just the player's handbook) some concepts will require you to multiclass a bunch just to have the abilities to back up what you want to roleplay your character being able to do (look at Elminster's build in 3.5: something like 1 rogue/2 fighter/3 cleric/bunches of wizard and some archmage). That said, most of the time when I run a game, the player's aren't throwing something with more than 2 classes in the build at me anyway (generally a class, and sometimes a prestige class).

ATalsen

2016-07-08, 02:58 PM

I have a 65 page house rules book, but most of that is not bans, and a couple pages detail out the allowed books for the campaign. Its a Pathfinder-based campaign that allows most of 3.5 as well as Dreamscarred press Psionics & Path of War.

What I do ban is setting-specific material from 3.5, so no Forgotten Realms stuff (I really hate Forgotten Realms anyway).

I also disallow purchase of any disposable with a caster level higher than the PCs character level, which prevents buying wishes at 10th level, or the like.

Nightsticks are out, but they would require some type of conversion to Pathfinder, so its easier to ignore them.

No Gate items.

No Dragon Magazine or Dragon Compendium - I don't own them and thus can't reference them anyway.

I've just started banning any animal companion/bonded animal/etc. that is larger than medium size, so I don't have an endless debates about how to get someone's animal into the dungeon, and then (once its in) how to have it NOT block the other melee fighters from engaging the enemy...

Necromancy

2016-07-08, 08:36 PM

{Scrubbed}

martixy

2016-07-08, 08:51 PM

The only thing explicitly not allowed is TO.

All else is fair game. Relying on your players to exercise restraint is IMO the best solution.

Though I have to say I do always find it funny when people go overboard on the house-ruling.
Like 65 pages... that's not 3.5 anymore, you've moved into "other game based on 3.5" territory.

P.S.
That's rather Stormwind heavy if you ask me. A lot of optimized builds are really easy to roleplay, and some even create their own roleplaying opportunities.
I think he knows. :smallbiggrin:

Inevitability

2016-07-09, 04:17 AM

{Scrubbed}

I think you're trying to portray something you yourself dislike (partially because of a bad DM) as universally bad.

Also, tone down the language, pretty sure we have rules against that here. If I want to read rambling text on how any reference to LGBT'ers is bad, I'd go to 4chan.

kellbyb

2016-07-09, 07:30 AM

Wrath of the Righteous
*snip*

Sounds like more of a problem with your DM than with Paizo.

dude123nice

2016-07-10, 10:29 AM

Too much to list in one go, and barred stuff varies depending on the game I'm runnin.
ToB/PoW is always off the table, as is any stupid cheat like Pun-pun or resetting Wish traps. Trying to game the system in general is disallowed, and my players are smart enough to not try or to take 'no' for an answer. Should anyone be foolish enough try something like a Candle of Invocation despite my warnings (so far no one has because I play with sensible people) Bad Things will happen.

So i take it you like your casters always being 2-3 tiers ahead your martials? Well i sure know I wouldn't like to play in your games.

Beheld

2016-07-10, 10:50 AM

So i take it you like your casters always being 2-3 tiers ahead your martials? Well i sure know I wouldn't like to play in your games.

I'm sure if any of his Wizard players ever cast Glitterdust he'd ban that too.

Faily

2016-07-10, 11:42 AM

Perhaps your group would be happier playing some Paizo adventures. They're chock full of obnoxious LBGT pandering characters.

Why yes, heavens forbid that different sexualities and gender-roles exist. /sarcasm. :smallsigh:

BWR

2016-07-10, 11:46 AM

So i take it you like your casters always being 2-3 tiers ahead your martials? Well i sure know I wouldn't like to play in your games.

In short: yes. 1. ToB/PoW don't close the gap between mundane and magic. 2. I don't like the mechanics. If you think something is lacking (in this case martials) fix what you have, don't make new **** to replace it.
Mundanes rules at lower levels, casters at higher. Mostly, my groups manage to play mixed groups at all levels just fine.
If you cannot play a non ToB/PoW mundane then I wouldn't want you in my games.

Inevitability

2016-07-10, 11:54 AM

Why yes, heavens forbid that different sexualities and gender-roles exist. /sarcasm. :smallsigh:

He already got banned. No matter how much I agree with you, I think trying to start a debate is a bit pointless now. :smallsmile:

Faily

2016-07-10, 11:56 AM

He already got banned. No matter how much I agree with you, I think trying to start a debate is a bit pointless now. :smallsmile:

My bad. Didn't see that. :smallsmile:

Beheld

2016-07-10, 12:46 PM

If you cannot play a non ToB/PoW mundane then I wouldn't want you in my games.

People who don't want to play Fighters are bad people you don't want in your game? Weird, I thought every group has at least one guy who likes playing casters.

kellbyb

2016-07-10, 01:05 PM

In short: yes. 1. ToB/PoW don't close the gap between mundane and magic. 2. I don't like the mechanics. If you think something is lacking (in this case martials) fix what you have, don't make new **** to replace it.
Mundanes rules at lower levels, casters at higher. Mostly, my groups manage to play mixed groups at all levels just fine.
If you cannot play a non ToB/PoW mundane then I wouldn't want you in my games.

What if I want to play a martial character who has more combat options than just full attack?

The Insanity

2016-07-10, 01:08 PM

What if I want to play a martial character who has more combat options than just full attack?
He already said he doesn't like that.

rrwoods

2016-07-10, 01:16 PM

I don't like the
I'll stop you right there.

What about your players?

TheIronGolem

2016-07-10, 01:22 PM

Guys, can we not make this another "fight over ToB/PoW" thread, please?

Beheld

2016-07-10, 01:33 PM

Guys, can we not make this another "fight over ToB/PoW" thread, please?

Don't worry, I think they are both terrible :smallsmile: So I'll switch sides back and forth.

I'll stop you right there.

What about your players?

What about your players? If the mechanics for something are really bad, and you don't want to have to deal with them, you should be able to say no, DM or player. I can think of lots of builds/classes where I would expect any player at the table to respect my preference not to play with those because I don't like playing in those games. If someone wants to play a character with Leadership, or a Summoner Binder, or a Charm/Dominate minion anything, or an undead army, they should be prepared for someone to say "Please don't" and they should probably respect that whomever it is.

Inevitability

2016-07-10, 01:42 PM

Don't worry, I think they are both terrible :smallsmile: So I'll switch sides back and forth.

He wasn't saying 'can we please not have another fight over whether ToB is better than PoW', he was saying 'can we please not have another fight over whether ToB and PoW are better than 'normal' melee classes'.

rrwoods

2016-07-10, 01:54 PM

I'll swing this back to the topic at hand.

"What about my players?" Indeed. If one of them wants to do something that's disruptive to the group dynamic, that infringes on others' ability to have fun, I'm going to have a talk with them about what they're trying to accomplish and how we can make it work in a way that isn't disruptive.

However, if what they're doing isn't disruptive to the group, then whether I like the subsystem they're using to accomplish it is hardly relevant.

That's my definition of "the mechanics are bad". To me "bad" = "disruptive". I ban disruptive things, and even then only after trying to find a way to make them constructive.

Beheld

2016-07-10, 02:01 PM

He wasn't saying 'can we please not have another fight over whether ToB is better than PoW', he was saying 'can we please not have another fight over whether ToB and PoW are better than 'normal' melee classes'.

I realize that, but I was already on the side criticizing the guy criticizing ToB and Path of War, so I was making the point that I would switch back and forth (Because ToB is bad, and Core fighters are bad.)

Faily

2016-07-10, 02:16 PM

I'll stop you right there.

What about your players?

Who are just fine without PoW/ToB?

Just saying this as a player at BWR's table. Who is playing a Paladin in a group with a Cleric and a Sorcerer. And we're level 19. I often feel like I'm the most powerful party-member out of those three.

Do I personally like the ToB (haven't tried with PoW yet)? Yes, I do. But the majority of games I play in (with and without BWR as the GM) don't allow it, and I manage just fine making martials without it. I'm old enough to not throw hissy-fits over not being allowed to do something I want to do. :smalltongue: It's a matter of respect for fellow group-members. If a player or a GM have a strong dislike over a particular sub-system, we do away with it. I personally don't like Psionics, but I won't scream if a GM includes it in their campaign. I just won't include it in mine. I just don't want to deal with it.

I see a lot of people here banning things I would never ban in my games... mostly because I wouldn't have to. I know my players won't abuse it, or will use it as intended. That don't make me post about how they are horrible to their players for not allowing these options. All gaming groups are different. Let's not get into the "you're doing it wrong" and wrongbadfun accusations.

This group manages just fine without PoW/ToB and aren't really missing it.

BWR

2016-07-10, 02:16 PM

What if I want to play a martial character who has more combat options than just full attack?

If you think that is all they are capable of you really need to learn how to play the core martials.

People who don't want to play Fighters are bad people you don't want in your game? Weird, I thought every group has at least one guy who likes playing casters.

I never said that and I would thank you to not put words in my mouth.

I'll stop you right there.

What about your players?

What about them?

Facetiousness aside, it is not an issue because we all, both as players and GMs, understand that it's the GM's game and the GM's word is law. GM sets the parameters, players play within those. Not that I've ever had to voice my opinion on this issue because no one has tried.

kellbyb

2016-07-10, 02:48 PM

If you think that is all they are capable of you really need to learn how to play the core martials.

Aside from tripping I fail to see what the core martials can do effectively aside from just attacking.

pi4t

2016-07-10, 02:58 PM

icefractal

2016-07-10, 03:08 PM

* Characters that CR 20 monsters are useless against
This is the big one, because I'm lazy. The players are 8th level, but they're taking on CR 18 monsters? No problem. But when they pass the point where anything in the MM is a threat? Screw that, I'm not homebrewing/optimizing all the foes from scratch.

* Infinite / NI Loops
At the very least, they force everyone else into NI territory to compete, and quite often, they make the game state impossible to resolve in any reasonable time without massive fudging. Go ahead, run a battle between a trillion Ice Assassins, I'll wait. Speaking of which ...

* Ignoring the 'hair/blood/etc' component for Simulacrum / Ice Assassin
Go ahead and ignore the gp cost if you can, but the 'biological sample' part serves three important purposes:
1) Makes it possible (if rather difficult) to take some measures against those spells, which is very important at high levels because apparently an Ice Assassins knows what the original knows - forget sending it to kill your foes, just interview it and find out all their secrets.
2) As a result, encourages schemes/heists to get hair from a very powerful/important person, which seems like a fun element to have in the game.
3) Avoids a bunch of difficult to answer questions about making a Simulacra of a nonexistant/dead/transformed/fake person. You get a copy of the creature the hair was from, at the time the hair was taken, that simple.

* Shivering Touch
Yes, I'm aware this isn't some extreme of power, and there are various countermeasures against it. I don't care; it's a boring strategy when it works and I don't feel like having to design all dragons around it. And being just a combat spell among many combat spells, I don't feel like I'm losing much by ditching it.

* Spell component pouch exploitation
Like claiming you can feed people on the infinite small tarts that are in there, or pull a billion pieces of wood from there in a round to make a huge obstacle, or pull artifacts and deity eyelashes from there because "priceless is the same as worthless". I realize taste is subjective, but personally speaking, it's just too dumb.

DarkSoul

2016-07-10, 03:16 PM

I play in a group with somewhat...extreme optimising. In particular, one player tends to push the limits, hard. Accordingly, I and other people in the group have had occasion to explicitly ban quite a few odd things, including:

A third party race giving +6 dex and +2 con and 40ft movement, for 0 LA
A third party class which gave 9 levels of casting off an ability score of your choice (physical or mental), no arcane spell failure or concentration checks, and the ability to cherry pick the best features Pathfinder adds to the other full casters
Applying the player's choice of templates which add up to 0CR to a PC
Several flaws taken off a wiki whose mechanical impact is miniscule even compared with the UA flaws

I've actually switched to banning flaws in the UA sense altogether, and instead give bonus feats at character creation for interesting roleplaying details or story hooks which are likely to work against the character during the game.This is why I blanket ban third party material in my 3.P games. The possible exception might be DSP, but I haven't had a chance to mess around with it much.

Other than that, I don't really ban much for being overpowered. Shivering Touch is banned, the 3.5 core martial classes are banned in favor of their PF versions. Because I set my games in the Forgotten Realms, divine casters need a patron entity to get spells from; there are no clerics of ideals. Other than those, most of my house rules are preemptive rulings that I've written down to not forget later (Time Stop's duration is instantaneous, etc.).

Windrammer

2016-07-10, 04:17 PM

Too much to list in one go, and barred stuff varies depending on the game I'm runnin.
ToB/PoW is always off the table, as is any stupid cheat like Pun-pun or resetting Wish traps. Trying to game the system in general is disallowed, and my players are smart enough to not try or to take 'no' for an answer. Should anyone be foolish enough try something like a Candle of Invocation despite my warnings (so far no one has because I play with sensible people) Bad Things will happen.
So you allow people to play Clerics and Wizards but not the Tier 3 classes designed to be able to almost keep up with them?

Why do ToB and PoW intimidate people so much I don't understand. Next time I play with a DM who disallows them I'll just destroy the game with a basic, unoptimized wizard and core spells. People are silly

torrasque666

2016-07-10, 05:08 PM

So you allow people to play Clerics and Wizards but not the Tier 3 classes designed to be able to almost keep up with them?

Why do ToB and PoW intimidate people so much I don't understand. Next time I play with a DM who disallows them I'll just destroy the game with a basic, unoptimized wizard and core spells. People are silly
So your response to "No, I don't allow those because XYZ" is "OK, I'm just going to make it so that you, nor the other players, can have fun during this campaign." Good luck getting invited to the next one. Or next session.

AtlasSniperman

2016-07-10, 05:10 PM

So specific is my homebrew world, that my list of "ban" has gone so far it's wrapped around and created an "allow" pdf.
All my players seem happy enough with it as I give them the book and simply say "This, only this, and these 1000 pages are free game"

Troacctid

2016-07-10, 05:21 PM

So you allow people to play Clerics and Wizards but not the Tier 3 classes designed to be able to almost keep up with them?

Why do ToB and PoW intimidate people so much I don't understand. Next time I play with a DM who disallows them I'll just destroy the game with a basic, unoptimized wizard and core spells. People are silly
Good luck with that if the next game you're playing in is starting at level 1. Initiators are legitimately overpowered at low levels, while wizards are actually quite weak and won't be destroying much of anything.

Jakewintergreen

2016-07-10, 06:07 PM

... both as players and GMs, understand that it's the GM's game and the GM's word is law. GM sets the parameters, players play within those.

This sentiment specifically is one that I have failed to grasp in all my years of playing D&D and sundry other tabletop roleplaying games. To me, D&D is at its very core a collaborative storytelling experience. It is not -my- game, or even truly -my- story: it is -our- game and -our- story. Sure, I have a narrative arc set out with challenges, foes, and a world for them to exist in; yet over the course of the game the shape of that construct changes both from player actions as well as their input. I solicit advice and encourage the players to get involved in worldbuilding alongside me as partners. Even in the area of rules themselves I work hard to be fair to the players and invoke DM fiat as minimally as physically possible. This style often bears the caveat of "Sure, you can do that, but if it becomes a problem later I reserve the right to revisit the issue" but in practice I rarely have to invoke that clause. Erring on the side of letting a player "do the thing" has resulted in some of the most satisfying and memorable moments of the games that I have run.

It could be that I have gotten very lucky with having wonderful players to work with (I certainly think they are by and large great), but I think there is value in de-emphasizing the power disparity between player and DM. There will be times when you have to be firm or rule in a way that the players dislike, but I have found success in being more of a guide than an enforcer.

Everyone has a different style and enjoys different games, and that is totally cool, but sometimes when you branch out and try something new you end up pleasantly surprised with the results :)

Troacctid

2016-07-10, 06:33 PM

This sentiment specifically is one that I have failed to grasp in all my years of playing D&D and sundry other tabletop roleplaying games. To me, D&D is at its very core a collaborative storytelling experience.
Different games have different expectations. In D&D, the Dungeon Master is expected to have full authority over both the game world and the rules. In other games, like FATE, the players share some of those responsibilities. Still other games have no DM at all, and everything is done collaboratively.

But this is D&D, and in D&D, DM sovereignty is the paradigm. You make the game, you make the rules.

The Insanity

2016-07-10, 06:45 PM

But this is D&D, and in D&D, DM sovereignty is the paradigm. You make the game, you make the rules.
That wasn't my experience, regardless of system. As the DM I'm free to "rule" the game only because that generally leads to good games. It's a gentelman's agreement of sorts. I put in the work, they catter to my whims. But only because they want to, not because they have to.

martixy

2016-07-10, 06:50 PM

This sentiment specifically is one that I have failed to grasp in all my years of playing D&D and sundry other tabletop roleplaying games. To me, D&D is at its very core a collaborative storytelling experience. It is not -my- game, or even truly -my- story: it is -our- game and -our- story. Sure, I have a narrative arc set out with challenges, foes, and a world for them to exist in; yet over the course of the game the shape of that construct changes both from player actions as well as their input. I solicit advice and encourage the players to get involved in worldbuilding alongside me as partners. Even in the area of rules themselves I work hard to be fair to the players and invoke DM fiat as minimally as physically possible. This style often bears the caveat of "Sure, you can do that, but if it becomes a problem later I reserve the right to revisit the issue" but in practice I rarely have to invoke that clause. Erring on the side of letting a player "do the thing" has resulted in some of the most satisfying and memorable moments of the games that I have run.

It could be that I have gotten very lucky with having wonderful players to work with (I certainly think they are by and large great), but I think there is value in de-emphasizing the power disparity between player and DM. There will be times when you have to be firm or rule in a way that the players dislike, but I have found success in being more of a guide than an enforcer.

Everyone has a different style and enjoys different games, and that is totally cool, but sometimes when you branch out and try something new you end up pleasantly surprised with the results :)

I would have to agree with you on general principle, but people do tend to derive different satisfactions out of the game.
Some, as BWR and Windrammer seem, tend to particularly enjoy the authoritarian or adversarial aspects of the game.

As a saying in my country goes, different people, different ideals.

However I would like to make a clarification. I think power disparity and asymmetric gameplay can be very fun. However I am all about minimizing the authority disparity or at least the need to exercise it.

Troacctid

2016-07-10, 07:07 PM

That wasn't my experience, regardless of system. As the DM I'm free to "rule" the game only because that generally leads to good games. It's a gentelman's agreement of sorts. I put in the work, they catter to my whims. But only because they want to, not because they have to.
Well yeah, that's why it's the paradigm. Because it works well.

Relevant DMG quote:

Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later).

kellbyb

2016-07-10, 07:30 PM

Well yeah, that's why it's the paradigm. Because it works well.

Relevant DMG quote:

emphasis on the "good, logical justification." All your power as DM is meaningless if you have no players. Sometimes you have to let up on your personal preferences to make the game better for everyone.

Âmesang

2016-07-10, 08:01 PM

In the rare instance that I've refereed a D&D game I always looked at it as trying to be as impartial as possible… almost to the point of running it in a way a computer might; it's generally why I rarely touch the rules 'cause at least then I have something I can easily reference. If I were to house rule something I'd have to make sure I wrote it down for future reference (due to having a lousy memory).

I guess it's 'cause I looked at a game more as a sort of improvisational story telling amongst the players with the referee merely supplying the base story and plot hooks, challenges, and rewards; probably why I use "referee" instead of "dungeon/game master." I've also seen too many change around a rule in the middle of a game "just because."

No explanation for the change ahead of time, just, "oh, yeah, that doesn't work. Sorry." :smallannoyed:

Peat

2016-07-10, 08:24 PM

That wasn't my experience, regardless of system. As the DM I'm free to "rule" the game only because that generally leads to good games. It's a gentelman's agreement of sorts. I put in the work, they catter to my whims. But only because they want to, not because they have to.

I think that's one of the better statements on DM authority I've ever seen.

Anyway, I've never run a D&D game, but if I did, guns would be straight out. Just feel out of place for me. Yes, I know its a giant mish-mash of everything but there we go. That's my whim.

That and one man adventuring parties.

Beheld

2016-07-10, 08:36 PM

Different games have different expectations. In D&D, the Dungeon Master is expected to have full authority over both the game world and the rules. In other games, like FATE, the players share some of those responsibilities. Still other games have no DM at all, and everything is done collaboratively.

But this is D&D, and in D&D, DM sovereignty is the paradigm. You make the game, you make the rules.

DM's are a sovereign as Prime Ministers, in that you can do anything you want, as long as you can get everyone else to agree that it's right. You can convince them to let you make decisions by making decisions they like and convincing them you will in the future. My players certainly never question the attack bonus of monsters, even when they make their knowledge check and find out that a base monster has an attack 10 points lower, because they trust me to optimize monsters to be fun fights. But if there's a rule, like "No X Class" in my games, that's not a DM sovereignty issue, that's a player preference issue, even if you are the DM, it's your preference as a player in the game to not have X class. Because the DM is just another player. And if you can't get the group to agree not to use a class as a player, you shouldn't do it as a DM, since then you are just using power that you basically don't deserve.

Faily

2016-07-10, 09:22 PM

Why do ToB and PoW intimidate people so much I don't understand. Next time I play with a DM who disallows them I'll just destroy the game with a basic, unoptimized wizard and core spells. People are silly

ToB/PoW isn't intimidating, but there are aspects of the system that people don't like. For some its the mechanics ("so the way to fix my Fighter is to make him cast magic with his sword?") or the fluff ("...did you just summon a fire elemental and light your sword on fire?"). I personally don't like Psionics. I'm not afraid or intimidated by the system. I just don't like it. YMMV.

I don't mind GMs banning subsystems (like PoW/ToB or Psionics), certain books, or heck even certain classes, simply because they don't want it in their games for specific reasons, wether it is a dislike of it or they just don't think it fits into the gameworld they are creating. While RPGs cannot happen without players, it is in the end the GM that has to create enemies for the players to fight, and to balance the encounters as needed against the players.

I see many players enjoy playing their pure Fighter, even in the presence of Druids and Clerics (was a Dweomerkeeper too, to boot, and this in a group that *allows* ToB), because that is what they wanted to play and Tiers doesn't even enter into their mind. I've never seen players sit at the table and complain about how [class] is more powerful than them, or have had players build characters specifically to "break the game" just to show how something is so powerful. Because THANKFULLY I play with reasonable adults.

As you are someone who would try to ruin the game for everyone just because the GM said "no, I don't want to have that in my game", I feel very fortunate to know that I do not play with any kind of people like that. That is along the lines of a child throwing a temper tantrum in the store because your parents won't get you any candy.

Troacctid

2016-07-10, 09:39 PM

ToB/PoW isn't intimidating, but there are aspects of the system that people don't like. For some its the mechanics ("so the way to fix my Fighter is to make him cast magic with his sword?") or the fluff ("...did you just summon a fire elemental and light your sword on fire?").
That's not really an accurate description—warblades are entirely nonmagical, and if you actually play the class, none of their maneuvers really "feel" like magic either. It's more like the 4e fighter backported to 3.5e.

I mean, swordsages are totally magical badasses, but they're not supposed to be a fighter, they're more of a monk/ninja/assassin type thing, and all of those classes normally have magic, so it shouldn't be weird that swordsages have some too.

TheCrowing1432

2016-07-10, 11:54 PM

Known Cheese (Infinite Wish loops, Ice Assassin nonsense, Locate City Bomb, etc)
Psionics (Doesnt fit the Western Fantasy vibe I get from DND, the only creatures I let have Psionics are illithids)
Eastern Stuff (Samurai, Ninja's, etc, if anyone wants to play these classes, they are refluffed rogues and fighters, just not a fan)

Everything else is an ask bases.

BWR

2016-07-11, 06:49 AM

If the whiners here want to start a new thread attacking my opinions on ToB/PoW, fine, I'll show up, but we're derailing this thread so I'm not going to say anything more on that subject here.

Back on track, individual games will see other restrictions depending on the setting or what I want to do with the game, not because I ban X in any given game I run. In my current Mystara game the Magus class in PF is restricted to elves, for instance, for no other reason than nostalgia for BECMI where elves were fighter-mages. Were I to run Golarion, Magus would be available to all races.
Part of the same campaign will see PCs from the Broken Lands - goblins, kobolds, etc. - and certain classes like wizard will probably be off limits because it doesn't fit in with the culture of the BL.
Were I to run Dark Sun there would be even more significant restrictions on what is allowed, primarily because of the nature of magic there.

Willie the Duck

2016-07-11, 09:33 AM

That's not really an accurate description—warblades are entirely nonmagical, and if you actually play the class, none of their maneuvers really "feel" like magic either. It's more like the 4e fighter backported to 3.5e.

I mean, swordsages are totally magical badasses, but they're not supposed to be a fighter, they're more of a monk/ninja/assassin type thing, and all of those classes normally have magic, so it shouldn't be weird that swordsages have some too.

Regardless of whether they are listed as magic, the common criticism of ToB at the time it was released was that the abilities that they initiate during combat 'feel' like spells. If you look at the long list of them in the book, it certainly does look like the spell description section of the PhB.

If the whiners here want to start a new thread attacking my opinions on ToB/PoW, fine, I'll show up, but we're derailing this thread so I'm not going to say anything more on that subject here.

There was enough whine to go around on both sides, but I agree we shouldn't be clogging this thread.

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-11, 11:28 AM

Other then Iron Heart Surge(poor wording thus is banned 99% of the time), I didn't really see the big deal. Honestly that's how I've always viewed it. Most melee are all amazing levels 1-10. After that magic users start to shine and just crap out crowdcontrol and damage.

Beheld

2016-07-11, 12:43 PM

That's not really an accurate description—warblades are entirely nonmagical, and if you actually play the class, none of their maneuvers really "feel" like magic either. It's more like the 4e fighter backported to 3.5e.

Any class which can use abilities based on usage limits, rather than based on current circumstances, is going to feel like magic, since that feels like something that would apply to magicians, rather than someone martial. A more martial set up would be if they could use any ability they had learned, and the reason they used different abilities was because of different circumstances, or what worked against different enemies.

It just feels magical to say "I use my X ability, and then it is used up until I recharge it."

Troacctid

2016-07-11, 12:49 PM

Any class which can use abilities based on usage limits, rather than based on current circumstances, is going to feel like magic, since that feels like something that would apply to magicians, rather than someone martial. A more martial set up would be if they could use any ability they had learned, and the reason they used different abilities was because of different circumstances, or what worked against different enemies.

It just feels magical to say "I use my X ability, and then it is used up until I recharge it."
I think 4e and 5e proved that that's not the case.

Inevitability

2016-07-11, 12:54 PM

Beheld

2016-07-11, 01:12 PM

Oh yes, barbarians are soooo magical, therefore I don't allow them in my games.

Yes, the fact that a Barbarian runs out of rages per day feels really dumb and counter to the character concept. Of course it does. How many times have you had a Barbarians run out of rages and then get into another fight an hour later? How many times did that not make you say, "Wait a minute, why the **** can't he rage? Of course he should be able to rage again!"

Yes, if a problem never comes up because you never get into a fight where a Barbarian can't rage because he's out of daily uses, then sure, you can ignore the problem because it doesn't come up, but yes, obviously rages per day feels overly magical, and not sensible, when applied to Barbarians.

kellbyb

2016-07-11, 01:33 PM

Yes, the fact that a Barbarian runs out of rages per day feels really dumb and counter to the character concept. Of course it does. How many times have you had a Barbarians run out of rages and then get into another fight an hour later? How many times did that not make you say, "Wait a minute, why the **** can't he rage? Of course he should be able to rage again!"

Yes, if a problem never comes up because you never get into a fight where a Barbarian can't rage because he's out of daily uses, then sure, you can ignore the problem because it doesn't come up, but yes, obviously rages per day feels overly magical, and not sensible, when applied to Barbarians.

But you don't ban barbarians because of that, do you?

Willie the Duck

2016-07-11, 01:42 PM

I think 4e and 5e proved that that's not the case.

Given how many people did not glom onto 4e, and often because it "didn't feel right" or some variation thereof, I would not use that as an example.

Beheld

2016-07-11, 01:57 PM

But you don't ban barbarians because of that, do you?

Core Barbarians? Sure I do. That's why people who want to play Barbarians in my games have to play homebrewed Barbarians that amongst other things, don't have rages per day, and can rage whenever.

Renen

2016-07-11, 08:02 PM

I find it strange that along with TO and infinite loops, people ban psionics and ToB, which in my opinion are probably two best parts of 3.5

iDesu

2016-07-11, 08:16 PM

I find it strange that along with TO and infinite loops, people ban psionics and ToB, which in my opinion are probably two best parts of 3.5

Personally I'm more confused by the flavor reasoning, because it feels more like magic to me than bat guano and spell slots. I guess the names don't really fit fantasy flavor?

Renen

2016-07-11, 08:20 PM

Personally I'm more confused by the flavor reasoning, because it feels more like magic to me than bat guano and spell slots. I guess the names don't really fit fantasy flavor?

Who cares about flavour? Refluffing things isn't hard. You can just say that psionics is internal magic similar to truenaming, where the user basically tells the universe how to behave.

I agree though. Psionics having a certain amount of power is more realistic than "spell slots". And Tome of Battle is simply mundane having nice things, like being able to get pounce, parry enemy swords, or concentrate hard enough to shrug off mind control

Troacctid

2016-07-11, 08:23 PM

Given how many people did not glom onto 4e, and often because it "didn't feel right" or some variation thereof, I would not use that as an example.
It may not have felt like "D&D", but the martial classes definitely felt different than the spellcasters, despite using the same resource system.

Personally I'm more confused by the flavor reasoning, because it feels more like magic to me than bat guano and spell slots. I guess the names don't really fit fantasy flavor?
Psionics lack resonance. The subsystem doesn't piggyback off of established fantasy archtypes. I think that's why it doesn't have the same appeal for many people.

Jowgen

2016-07-11, 08:40 PM

Doubt this'll add anything to the thread but, I too ban ToB and Psionics.

Not so much because I don't like the flavor, or think there are balance issue, but simply because they're really just alternate magic systems. I don't allow Shadow Caster Mysteries either.

Why can't I tolerate alternatives to classical D&D magic? I think on the whole it's mainly a design-aesthetic thing for me...

Renen

2016-07-11, 08:50 PM

What do you mean by design-aesthetic?

And do the flavour and variety of options that ToB brings to mundane classes not outweigh it?

Jowgen

2016-07-11, 09:08 PM

What do you mean by design-aesthetic?

And do the flavour and variety of options that ToB brings to mundane classes not outweigh it?

I suppose I am referring to a subjective sense of how "beautifully" the game is structured. I feel like adding a whole different magic system is... sort of a clunky way to expand the game. Each new magic system uses the orignial as a base-line, but obviously isn't as big in terms of options and couldn't really replace the original. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that alternate magic systems aren't "sexy" :smalltongue:

If you're a big fan of an alternate magic system's flavor, obviously you're gonna have a different perception on this front. For me, even the power-to-the-mundane argument doesn't sit right, in that I feel like maneuvers are mundane in the same way that Ravages aren't Poisons.

But that's all just me. No solid reasoning, just my personal taste.

Beheld

2016-07-11, 09:21 PM

I find it strange that along with TO and infinite loops, people ban psionics and ToB, which in my opinion are probably two best parts of 3.5

I personally find power points/mana to be the worst possible resource management system for a table top RPG, so while I don't particularly ban Psionics, I encourage people to either use a homebrew Psionics if they want it for the theme, or if they want it for the mechanics, I recommend some other class of some kind.

Sayt

2016-07-11, 09:21 PM

Yes, the fact that a Barbarian runs out of rages per day feels really dumb and counter to the character concept. Of course it does. How many times have you had a Barbarians run out of rages and then get into another fight an hour later? How many times did that not make you say, "Wait a minute, why the **** can't he rage? Of course he should be able to rage again!"

Yes, if a problem never comes up because you never get into a fight where a Barbarian can't rage because he's out of daily uses, then sure, you can ignore the problem because it doesn't come up, but yes, obviously rages per day feels overly magical, and not sensible, when applied to Barbarians.

A possible explanation for limited rage per day is that mortal bodies can only sustain rage episodes, like panic/anxiety attacks, for a certain amount of time at once, and afterwards you're exhausted and depleted.

Barbarian Rage isn't just 'Flipping Tables Angry', It's 'Picking Up and Hurling Tables Angry'. That **** is draining.

Renen

2016-07-11, 09:23 PM

Why is mana worse than some obscure spell slot mechanic? More often in fantasy literature you see mages run out of magical juice (aka mana) rather than run out of memorized spells

Beheld

2016-07-11, 09:51 PM

A possible explanation for limited rage per day is that mortal bodies can only sustain rage episodes, like panic/anxiety attacks, for a certain amount of time at once, and afterwards you're exhausted and depleted.

Which would be a better argument if 4th level Barbarians (Or First level Barbarians with a feat) weren't able to Rage, and then a round after it ended, Rage again, but then, just be so "Tired" that they can't rage again for 23 hours and 59 minutes.

Why is mana worse than some obscure spell slot mechanic? More often in fantasy literature you see mages run out of magical juice (aka mana) rather than run out of memorized spells

Because mana is the least interesting resource management mechanic in a tabletop game, where you spend your time making discrete actions at a table, since it encourages spamming your one most powerful attack over and over, is more work to track than specific uses systems, and relatively "novas".

I don't care that someone else writing a book is more likely to describe a mana system (if that is even true), because you can tell a good story together about whatever system you use, but if you are using a system in a game, it should be a system that provides the best gameplay.

Barbarian Horde

2016-07-11, 10:17 PM

Who cares about flavour? Refluffing things isn't hard. You can just say that psionics is internal magic similar to truenaming, where the user basically tells the universe how to behave.

I agree though. Psionics having a certain amount of power is more realistic than "spell slots". And Tome of Battle is simply mundane having nice things, like being able to get pounce, parry enemy swords, or concentrate hard enough to shrug off mind control

Can't wizards do the same thing with magic as psions?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm Rule Alternative
I thought this system on SRD was pretty damn close.

Renen

2016-07-11, 10:21 PM

(if that is even true)

Im pretty sure in almost every fantasy novel, you see a wizard say "im too tired to cast this spell" signifying they are out of magical "juice" instead of saying they dont have it memorized for the day. I mean really... you spend decades training in magic and on some days you cant just cast magic missile?

Can't wizards do the same thing with magic as psions?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm Rule Alternative
I thought this system on SRD was pretty damn close.

Except psions have special powers that have interactions with the points instead. But aside from that, yeh.

Troacctid

2016-07-11, 10:59 PM

The spell point variant is super broken as written though.

Beheld

2016-07-11, 11:00 PM

Im pretty sure in almost every fantasy novel, you see a wizard say "im too tired to cast this spell" signifying they are out of magical "juice" instead of saying they dont have it memorized for the day. I mean really... you spend decades training in magic and on some days you cant just cast magic missile?

2) Not if your magic system doesn't let you.

1) I'm hard pressed to think of a book series that does fantasy, and uses Mana. Maybe that really bad one about people who sucked magic out of buildings and other people's lifeforce. Most fictional magic systems seem to be either: a) Assorted Vancian and Semi-Vancian, often based off D&D, but not always, b) at will, or limits never show up, c) Drain.

Renen

2016-07-11, 11:21 PM

2) Not if your magic system doesn't let you.

1) I'm hard pressed to think of a book series that does fantasy, and uses Mana. Maybe that really bad one about people who sucked magic out of buildings and other people's lifeforce. Most fictional magic systems seem to be either: a) Assorted Vancian and Semi-Vancian, often based off D&D, but not always, b) at will, or limits never show up, c) Drain.

Most fantasy books have it at will, but say that magic tires the user, which I view as there being "mana" which the user can run out of and be too tired to use spells.

AnachroNinja

2016-07-11, 11:28 PM

Yeah gotta agree about the psionics thing. I don't treat it as mana at all but the degree to which using your powers tires you out, stresses your mind, and drains you. I find out infinitely more reasonable that you can cast powers as you choose with a commiserate amount if effort to the strength of the power then preparing discreet spells a certain number of times. I like to play wizards and I've read Vance's books so I get the concept, but I feel it's way more clunky. On that note, if I were gonna ditch some of the multiple magic systems, vancian casting would be the first one to get the axe. I'd rather replace arcane casting with refluffed psionics then vice versa.

Beheld

2016-07-11, 11:45 PM

Most fantasy books have it at will, but say that magic tires the user, which I view as there being "mana" which the user can run out of and be too tired to use spells.

"At will" means at will, and they don't get tired, like say, Harry Potter, or the Magicians.

Mana would be a system where you can do X amount of magic, you do the magic, and then you are totally fine, but can't do more magic, I can't truly think of anything like this at all.

A system in which people get tired when they are low on magic is a Drain system, like Shadowrun. Drain systems, especially when the Drain is on the same thing that determines casting, is a much better system than Mana, since it encourages decisions about judicious use. This would be your Wheel of Times, or other pretty standard fare, That Color Magic Series?

Also, many books have something which amounts to an essentia system, either in addition to drain or in place of at will, where using one ability comes at the cost of using another, this would be King Killers, at least as far as Sympathy, no real limits yet shown on naming.

Although, now that I think about it, probably most series use some variant of External Magical Resupply, like Mistborn, Demon Cycle, Stormlight Archive. I'm really not sure how to count that. It's hard to call something like that "Mana" since the defining characteristic of each system is that everyone has infinite mana as long as they have X, where X is the thing that gives mana. Also somewhat complicated by the fact that all three have a way to spend "Mana" to be less tired, and so it's hard to tell if the being tired afterword is drain, or just lack of magical non tiredness. And of course, hard to call Mistborn mana, since it would be like 16 separate mana pools per person, unless you bring ferochemy into it, in which case add another 16, and sometimes negative mana is good...

P.F.

2016-07-12, 12:23 AM

I used to run core-only with other supplements on a case-by-case basis and a hard cap to the number of additional rulebooks per player because it kept down the wacky combos and sped up the cross-referencing at the table. Nowadays, the SRD (and the Site Which Must Not Be Named) can pull up most any rules we need, so the cherry-picking ban is less important for streamlining gameplay.

Beyond that,

1. No psionics outside of core. Apart from mind flayers' mind blast, githzerai's inertial armor, etc., core psionics are indistinguishable from spell-like abilities, and I have no problem with SLA's. Some day I will tease out all the divinations, enchantments, transmutations, and illusions which should be the sole purview of psionics and which can be shared between magic and psionics, maybe create my own d20 system which has a constructive balance of arcane/divine/psionic magic. But for now, just no.

2. Similar to the above, obviously no spell points. Also, no incantrix.

3. No Tome of Battle / Path of War. I understand the desire to have martial characters with interesting abilities but I'm not interested in bastardizing the magic system for that purpose. Please just write me up a feat that allows you to have whatever capability it is you want instead: I don't care that it's categorically better than any existing feat. It will "feel" like a maneuver that you can just do because you're a badass instead of "feeling" like a "spell" that you can "cast" because you "prepared" it or whatever.

4. No gnomes. I don't really have a reason for this one, I just prefer to play without them.

5. No undisclosed "combo" abilities. I'm very encouraging of player-designed content, I think the ability to incorporate the players' imaginations is one of the best things about D&D, but if your new spell is going to have a dramatic interaction with your special class ability, it isn't going to work unless you told me about it ahead of time.

I'm sure there are others, but that's all that comes to mind right now.

Hurnn

2016-07-12, 01:34 AM

Psionics: for 2 reasons. 1 if you want to play a guy who has innate power to shoot mind bullets there is already a class for that, sorcerer. 2 I dont really want to add another complex system to a game that already has to many. I will openly admit however psionics is a better system than normal casting and I'm just to lazy to back port all magic to it.

Incantrix and Initiate ot7 fold Veil, brokenly over powered prestige classes to add onto an already brokenly over powered class.

Wish, the polymorph line, planar bindings and gates are in but heavily modified (nothing is automatic and always has a cost.)

In my current game i am running e-6 have really cut back a lot just to keep the splat book diving cheese-mongering in check, and have done pretty extensive reworks on most the classes to try and help balance them. My next game I think I will expand to e-8 or 10 because frankly e-6 feels limiting to me as the dm and I think i alsoe want there to be slightly better magic available to players but keep it at a level that isn't game breaking.

On an aside a lot of people have been saying that melee's dominate early. I don't buy that at all casters rule 1-20 its just closer early; except for druid they makes mundanes look like clowns starting at lvl 1.