Knee Jerk Ban

[Theobod]

Inspired by another thread here that got me thinking.
DMs ban things for many reasons, some of them justified others clearly not, so, I am curious.

Playground: What have you banned, or had banned in a game you are in, out of a kneejerk reaction of real or perceived imbalance or 'brokenness' that was at the time, or later proved to be, unjustified.
Ancillary question: What have you banned, or had banned, that at the time appeared legitimate but later proved unjustified OR seemed unjustified but in the passage of time proved a legitimate concern?
Also related: The above but with severe (real or perceived) nerfs instead of outright bans.

What this thread is NOT for: Arguments concerning 'Game Breaking' vs 'Campaign Breaking' abilities and smack talk over decisions, only calm rational discussion without prejudice, consider this an amnesty thread.

For the moment I will hold out on my own experiences and trickle them in as I hear others experiences.

[AvatarVecna]

Sadly, an answer I've seen with unfortunate frequency in previous threads like this has been "monks, for being overpowered".

EDIT: As for what I've actually born witness to, the dude who ran the game I played in middle school banned mounted combat because the paladin kept killing his big baddies too quickly. Of course, when every big baddie fight is a devil in a flat empty field...

[Florian]

Playground: What have you banned, or had banned in a game you are in, out of a kneejerk reaction of real or perceived imbalance or 'brokenness' that was at the time, or later proved to be, unjustified.

Subsystems that add a layer of complexity to the table that I see no real gain by allowing but are simply dragging out the decision-making process.

For PF, that´ll be the "Word"-Casting System oder "Combat Endurance". No game breakers, far from it, but banned because they´re too fiddly and I simply don´t "grog" anything that lengthens combats.

[tadkins]

Evil-aligned characters are something I see get banned a lot for no real reason.

[LTwerewolf]

I banned psionics for partially this reason, because I hadn't really read through it I didn't really know. I now welcome psionics and in fact went out of my way to alter my campaign setting to incorporate them.


Evil-aligned characters are something I see get banned a lot for no real reason.

The reason is generally how people tend to play "stupid evil" rather than actual evil (you know, the type that does something other than kick puppies because lulz).

[tadkins]

The reason is generally how people tend to play "stupid evil" rather than actual evil (you know, the type that does something other than kick puppies because lulz).

This is true, though an across-the-board ban isn't the best way to handle that imo. Just as with RL, evil jerks exist. Doesn't mean they can't work with a party and be a functioning member of a team though.

[LTwerewolf]

This is true, though an across-the-board ban isn't the best way to handle that imo. Just as with RL, evil jerks exist. Doesn't mean they can't work with a party and be a functioning member of a team though.

Once a player has played in my campaigns, I allow them to play evil, so I know evil can work with parties. I'm just saying there is actually reason behind blanket bans on evil (and often chaotic neutral, because it's played just as stupid half the time), whether or not there is agreement on the ban.

[Inevitability]

I've had a DM for a 4e game ban refluffing. Note that 4e is perhaps even more suited to refluffing than 3.5, because the mechanics can be adapated to many kinds of fluff.

He didn't even give a reason why, I just received a flat 'No.' when I asked.

[Florian]

I banned psionics for partially this reason, because I hadn't really read through it I didn't really know. I now welcome psionics and in fact went out of my way to alter my campaign setting to incorporate them.

I still do not. The effectiveness of Psionics very openly favors player ability and commitment and I want a level playing field for all comers.

[Elkad]

I had a DM who I think was angry about my standard godmode wizard play (mainly BFC spells). I'd jam up the battlefield and then plink away with a crossbow, or just direct my familiar around or something, while the BSF members of the group cleaned everything up.

He started giving an unusual amount of his creatures tactical teleportation abilities.
So of course I started prepping Anticipate Teleportation every day.
He promptly banned that spell.

[Wonton]

Less common these days, but back when the Gunslinger was first coming out for PF, I saw that get banned a lot. Not sure why. If you wanna go for a "traditional fantasy" setting, being able to cast Teleport, Plane Shift, Resurrection, and Polymorph any Object are way more ridiculous than guns IMO.

[D.M.Hentchel]

Generally I ban things for a few reasons:
-Not fitting within the theme of the campaign (like tome of battle)
-Not fitting in the story of the campaign (sometimes orcs)
-Abilities that effectively counter a central enemy type of the campaign (turn undead in a zombie survival)
-Not having a place in my world (like the elan or dusklings)
-Interacting badly with my homebrew material
-Being fundementally game breaking and not iconic (some troll-blooded feat ended up in this catagory)
-Absence of the thing in question is an important story point of the campaign (A campaign about the sudden disappearence of druid magic)

In general I only ban things for demands of a campaign, however many other things come with stipulations or nerfs.

[BowStreetRunner]

Sadly, an answer I've seen with unfortunate frequency in previous threads like this has been "monks, for being overpowered".

I've actually witnessed dwarves being banned for the same reason. Yep, monks and dwarves are overpowered! So watch out for that dwarven monk everyone, that would be one kick-@$$ OP character build!!!

Personally, I ban lots of stuff but it's always a very considered decision relevant to the specific campaign I'm running and never just because something seems OP. The same things I ban in one campaign I might readily allow in another.

The most common knee-jerk bans I've witnessed are Tome of Battle bans, because...you know...martial adepts are so OP...but Wizards and Druids are okay.

[Geddy2112]

In general I only ban things for demands of a campaign
Second this. These have nothing to do with power level, imbalance, or brokenness.

I see the leadership feat banned in most pathfinder games-I have never played in one that allowed it.

I don't ban things for being too powerful, but I establish a gentleman's agreement that if you can use it against me, I can/will use it against you, so it is best we both agree not to use certain things.

[Wonton]

Actually, I do think Dwarves are extremely underrated. Their bonuses to saves are crazy good, and they have ability score bonuses good for almost any class. Also, Darkvision is much more important than most people realize, I think.

I certainly wouldn't ban them, that's extremely silly, but I would say they are the 2nd best race in the PHB (and the best for anyone that plans to wear medium or heavy armor).

[Albions_Angel]

I have banned evil chars, not because people were weird with it, but because my party just kinda didnt do it. We always banned them, so I allowed them for my game. Cue 5 "evil" characters who were actually just the normal collection of CN and LG chars I usually play with. Even the necromancer was a neutral cleric who only used undead as pack animals, or to march corpses to the graveyard after the party killed the bad guys. And even that caused a massive real life argument because the "evil" druid didnt like undead so attacked them. Dice were thrown. I rapped the game up next session and banned evil chars.

My group usually bans ToB. I allowed it for dips after the first session. I didnt want any full on initiators because some of the players were scared of ToB. One level later, and only one player picked up a ToB level (in swordsage). Fine, whatever. He proceeded to DOMINATE vs the other martials, and several of the casters (low to mid op) so much so that the other players began to complain. I quieted them down, told them to give it time, and later that session put them up against a host of ninjas and one sword sage. Well, almost a total party wipe and I had to take ToB off the board. The player got to keep his one level, but that was it. My other players refusing to play ToB made it impossible to use it.

I ban psionics because I really cant get it to jive with my world. I have tried refluffing it a hundred different ways, but I just cant.

[Gnaeus]

I've seen warmage banned because it has all the best sorcerer spells like fireball, but knows more of them and can wear armor.

[Cerefel]

As much as I love ToB, I must admit that it does have a rather high power floor and is noticeably ahead of the curve in the early few levels. Because of this, I've banned taking initiator classes at 1st level, but initiator level now rounds up instead of down to make up for it later.

[LTwerewolf]

-Things about TOB-

The only time I've ever seen it dominate a game is at the first 1 or 2 levels. After that, I've never noticed an issue. What level was everyone when this happened?

[Albions_Angel]

Everyone was level 4 when the guy took his level of Swordsage. He was playing an odd monk. Optimized for tripping, a water orc with dark glasses (to avoid the glare of the sun), and taking the tripping ACF from UA. Adding in sword sage abilities, he went for the teleport and things like that. Its more that he already dominated, but not in a noticeable way. When no one else even tried to look at ToB, his sudden abilities just blew them away and they wernt happy. Then when they encountered the enemy full on level 5 swordsage and his ninja cohorts (they had regularly cleared harder encounters), the stances and everything just floored them. They had no way to counter it and get really cross with me.

Ironically, if they had just LOOKED at the book, they would have known the limitations of what I was doing and been able to shut it down, initiator or no.

[BowStreetRunner]

He was playing a...monk.
Sounds more like the rest of the party was playing at a much lower optimization level. I think that the problem with a lot of the bans is that they result from a lack of understanding and limited experience with the source material.

I would categorically ban anything I knew to be truly broken, but there is little even the best optimizers in the playground can do that a savvy DM can't manage. For instance, whenever I deal with a player using Wish, I get to adjudicate the outcome. So no Wish is ever just hand-waved and automatically granted as intended. My games are always a bit more "be careful what you wish for". It's not that I won't grant something reasonable, just that if someone tries something truly broken they will learn the hard way how nightmarish some granted wishes can be. (On the flip side, I am always hesitant to use a Wish in anyone else's game, particularly anyone who played in one of my games and saw a wish go bad.)

Which begs the question, if the issue is the DM is not prepared to deal with the consequences of allowing the material, isn't that just the price of playing with that DM? I've been in more situations where it is harder to find a DM than to find players. So if someone is willing to run a game and wants to say "no psionics or tome of battle" then that doesn't actually sound all that unreasonable to me. If you truly want to convince them otherwise, offer to DM yourself with those included and show them how to make it work.

[Albions_Angel]

I was the DM, but I totally take your point :)

It wasnt so much that it was low op. It was mid op, but somehow we ended up with no straight casters. Its more that the group has been together for AGES, played with the same books for AGES, played similar settings for AGES. My setting was new, I had new challenges, they were facing way more NPCs rather than monsters, the power level was higher for the NPCs, making them feel smaller, and then this guy (who I think is a great player btw, very fun and interesting builds and Role Play) who was relatively knew to the group pulls out a tripping monk in heavy armor.

Suddenly the group's usually battle flow (casters buff or delay, martials move in and form flanking pairs, delayed casters control, debuff and blast) just wasnt working as Kumquat (the monk) wandered haphazardly round the battlefield tripping people with HUGE success. I started having to throw in characters with wands of stand and UMD, as well as things with armor enchantments and stuff. His stunning fist followup was annoying as hell, and the rest of the party didnt really know how to deal with it. When he started teleporting for free at least once per encounter, they threw a fit. I had no issue with it, but the other players did.

Ironically, the thing I considered broken was the druid turning into a fleshraker and summoning a fleshraker. Totally setting breaking. Oh well.

[Jormengand]

Even worse than the monk ban, I've seen truenamer banned because it's too powerful. Ayup. I wonder what these people must think of Disciples of the Word.

[Kesnit]

I had a DM who banned all the Faerun campaign setting books. I learned this when my wife and I wanted to build a Warlock (her) and a Spellfire Channeler (me) using the Warlock as his battery. (I never actually built the Spellfire Channeler, so don't know what the actual classes would have been.)

[Sian]

To take an example from the opposite gutter, I've seen someone banning Druid because its was considered stupidly weak ... not able to blast as well as Arcane classes, not able to heal anywhere near as well as Clerics, not as good at surviving in wilderness as Ranger.

[Zanos]

The reason is generally how people tend to play "stupid evil" rather than actual evil (you know, the type that does something other than kick puppies because lulz).
In my experience, people who play disruptive jerk characters will do so regardless of the permitted alignments. Stupid Evil is a player problem, and not one that can really be solved by restricting alignments. I don't ban any alignments, but I make it clear to my players that I expect the party to work together when it matters. Some moral IC tension is great, though.


I've actually witnessed dwarves being banned for the same reason. Yep, monks and dwarves are overpowered! So watch out for that dwarven monk everyone, that would be one kick-@$$ OP character build!!!
In early 3.5 and core only games, Dwarves were the only race that got a bonus to two good stats and a penalty to one that was kind of terrible anyway. A Dwarf cleric was extremely strong, especially when there aren't as many options for that human bonus feat.


The most common knee-jerk bans I've witnessed are Tome of Battle bans, because...you know...martial adepts are so OP...but Wizards and Druids are okay.
Adepts have a much lower floor than spellcasters, in my experience. Sure a properly played wizard is a terror, but if you put an adept next to a guy chucking fireballs, the adept seems pretty OP.

[Telok]

I've generally banned setting specific stuff in my homemade setting, because it usually doesn't fit. But I always say that if someone wants something they can ask and we'll talk about it.

I've banned the CW samurai.

I've banned newer spells, generally not well written in my opinion, that totally obviate other spells of equal or higher level. Generally this only catches Ebon Eyes and Orb of <not acid>. Although I allow the orb spells as evocation spells that don't bypass SR.

I've banned players building their Leadership cohorts and followers. I do at least give them the class, race, and general role of the cohort. Followers are randomly generated.

Generally I try to put setting or worldbuilding type limits on stuff. Things like having magic propigate through ley lines in the earth and water so that flying and teleporting long distances is unreliable and dangerous. Although there are generally lesser artifacts that let the party get around those limits at about 12th level.

I've seen non-telepath psionics banned. That was strange.

[Inevitability]

Sounds more like the rest of the party was playing at a much lower optimization level. I think that the problem with a lot of the bans is that they result from a lack of understanding and limited experience with the source material.

Well, monk is a decent dip for some builds. Not saying this specific build was optimized, but four monk levels are still justifiable on a mid-op character.

[LTwerewolf]

In my experience, people who play disruptive jerk characters will do so regardless of the permitted alignments. Stupid Evil is a player problem, and not one that can really be solved by restricting alignments. I don't ban any alignments, but I make it clear to my players that I expect the party to work together when it matters. Some moral IC tension is great, though.




I agree, it's pretty much always the player and they use the alignment as an excuse. "But I'm CN/NE/CE/LE! I have to be an asshat!"

[AvatarVecna]

I agree, it's pretty much always the player and they use the alignment as an excuse. "But I'm CN/NE/CE/LE! I have to be an asshat!"

Amusingly, I can see why you're using the standard "evil" alignments to display this attitude, but I've seen similar arguments made for all lawful alignments and true neutral as well. It seems the only alignments that don't have an existing stereotype that easily falls into "I'm an asshat who does whatever I want and will justify it to myself afterwards" are Chaotic Good and Neutral Good...and both of those can be easily corrupted as well. Ain't alignment fun?

[BowStreetRunner]

Amusingly, I can see why you're using the standard "evil" alignments to display this attitude, but I've seen similar arguments made for all lawful alignments and true neutral as well. It seems the only alignments that don't have an existing stereotype that easily falls into "I'm an asshat who does whatever I want and will justify it to myself afterwards" are Chaotic Good and Neutral Good...and both of those can be easily corrupted as well. Ain't alignment fun?

My only restriction on alignment is that as the DM, I get to run the villains. No competition allowed. If your PC turns from a hero or anti-hero into a villain, then I get to take them over as an NPC.

[AvatarVecna]

My only restriction on alignment is that as the DM, I get to run the villains. No competition allowed. If your PC turns from a hero or anti-hero into a villain, then I get to take them over as an NPC.

That's fair enough; people can play evil heroes, after all. Mind you, I imagine that's because you run games where the players are the heroes; presumably, a game where the PCs are taking over the world or something would be different, I assume.

[BowStreetRunner]

That's fair enough; people can play evil heroes, after all. Mind you, I imagine that's because you run games where the players are the heroes; presumably, a game where the PCs are taking over the world or something would be different, I assume.

Correct. Only, as a DM, that's not really my thing.

[Tytalus]

I've had a DM ban the Mystic Theurge (no early entry), because casting from two lists apparently is "the definition of overpowered".

[Necroticplague]

I've had a DM ban pretty much every part of a build of mine because it was overpowered. Apparently, when he said 'bring your A-game, my campaigns are usually fairly meatgrinders', he and I had a different definition of what exactly 'A-game' dnd playing was. In my case, it was a Rainbow Dreadsnake Spelldancer. As a result, after a session of play, Dread Necromancer, Rainbow Servant, Spelldancer, and Persistent Spell were all banned after my pile of buffs and good spell use turned what were supposed to be massive challenges into cakewalks. Why he didn't just Dispel is beyond me.

[FearlessGnome]

Apparently ok: Custom Cha to Saves magical item given as loot to a gestalt sorcerer.
Also ok: pretending that Hierophant advances spellcasting.
Not ok: starting the Geomancer prestige class before level 6 in a gestalt game.

It is my favourite campaign ever and I loved it, but there were some weird rulings there.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I remember a lot of people complaining about the Mystic Theurge early in 3E. Failure to consider opportunity costs, I think.

Besides that, I've seen Warlock banned a few times because "OMG - unlimited blasting?!" Warlock is an interesting case, because unlike Psionics and ToB, people can't usually claim it doesn't fit thematically.

Spiked Chain is another one. I think this was basically "guilt by association":
1) An optimized martial type will kick ass compared to non-optimized ones, in an obvious way.
2) Spiked Chains have some properties that make them favored for optimization purposes, so they appear a lot in those type of characters.
It's not really doing much you couldn't do with a reach weapon + gauntlets/boots, but it became the focal point of ire, so much so that it was nerfed in Pathfinder (then replaced a while later with other weapons that do the same thing).

I almost forgot - Warforged! So much hate on them for having immunities. And/or for being from Eberron - some DMs really loathed that setting - not just wouldn't run it but really got pissed off about it. I like it myself, but then I could care less about "classic fantasy tropes" so maybe that's the factor.

[Wonton]

To take an example from the opposite gutter, I've seen someone banning Druid because its was considered stupidly weak ... not able to blast as well as Arcane classes, not able to heal anywhere near as well as Clerics, not as good at surviving in wilderness as Ranger.

:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:

There isn't a facepalm gif in the world to describe how hard I just facepalmed.

Even aside from how wrong they are, why would you ban something because it's too weak??? Either buff it, or let players play something weak if they want, it's not going to break your game.

[ComaVision]

Even aside from how wrong they are, why would you ban something because it's too weak??? Either buff it, or let players play something weak if they want, it's not going to break your game.

I disagree. I don't care if a group I'm DMing for is very optimized or barely optimized, as long as there isn't too much power disparity.

[Krobar]

We don't actually ban anything. DM rule #1 in our group... there's always someone tougher than you.

[Malimar]

Spiked Chain is another one. I think this was basically "guilt by association":
1) An optimized martial type will kick ass compared to non-optimized ones, in an obvious way.
2) Spiked Chains have some properties that make them favored for optimization purposes, so they appear a lot in those type of characters.
It's not really doing much you couldn't do with a reach weapon + gauntlets/boots, but it became the focal point of ire, so much so that it was nerfed in Pathfinder (then replaced a while later with other weapons that do the same thing).

On occasion I've pondered banning Spiked Chain, not because it's too powerful, but because it's super goofy.

[Marlowe]

On occasion I've pondered banning Spiked Chain, not because it's too powerful, but because it's super goofy.

Agreed. I haven't done this because everyone I play with seems to be of the same opinion and simply doesn't use them.

We've kind of got a gentlemen's agreement to not use Iron Heart Surge or White Raven Tactics; the former because its so sloppily written and the second because it can be confusing for the other players. It doesn't stop the martial initiators from being effective and fun, but a Barbarian has no trouble keeping up with them.

Rather than ban ToB I'd be inclined the core Fighter, Monk, and Paladin for being complete wastes of everyone's time.

[ekarney]

I wouldn't say knee-jerk, but I have banned ToB and Psionics solely because I'm honestly not bothered reading them - that being said if there's something in those books that a player wants to use that doesnt actually utilize the systems in said books I'll give it a go ahead, for example; the aptitude enhancement from ToB.

I haven't technically banned MoI yet, but that's because my players don't care about it either.

[Telok]

why would you ban something because it's too weak??? Either buff it, or let players play something weak if they want, it's not going to break your game.

Hey, I admitted to banning the samurai from Complete Warrior for that reason. Of course my house rules also give fighters a feat every level, unlimited access to the Martial Study feat, 4 skill points a level, and adds several skills to the class list.

As for banning stuff just because you don't want to read. Well that kills the spell and magic item compendiums right off the bat, all of the setting specific stuff, and a couple of monster manuals. Seriously, who has read the whole Spell Compendium?

[Daddoo]

This is true, though an across-the-board ban isn't the best way to handle that imo. Just as with RL, evil jerks exist. Doesn't mean they can't work with a party and be a functioning member of a team though.

I play a NE Halfing rogue in one campaign and it has caused no issues except when I cut the kobold captives throat in the dungeon. Because leaving it tied up in a dark deep dungeon for creepy crawlies to find an easy meal was so much more ethical.

As a DM I have only once banned something and that was psionics because no one knew how the heck to play them nor did I know how to defend against them. I and my players have since learned and now we have nothing banned. Except a player she is banned.....

[Daddoo]

Actually, I do think Dwarves are extremely underrated. Their bonuses to saves are crazy good, and they have ability score bonuses good for almost any class. Also, Darkvision is much more important than most people realize, I think.

I certainly wouldn't ban them, that's extremely silly, but I would say they are the 2nd best race in the PHB (and the best for anyone that plans to wear medium or heavy armor).

What do you consider the best race?

[LTwerewolf]

What do you consider the best race?

I assume human.

[SangoProduction]

Personally, In every game I run in a D&D campaign, I ban all the alignments. Of course, there's the bit of homebrew that addresses any power relating to alignments, which I couldn't be bothered to think of right now.

There's no "Good" or "Evil", there are just consequences for being a douche bag.

[ManicOppressive]

I used to ban Persistent Spell, Divine Power, and a host of other Divine spells. But nowadays I've found that the best sweeping solution to the whole CoDzilla mess is to ban Divine Metamagic and Natural Spell. Two feats down, and 90% of the low-effort tricks wiped out.

[Metahuman1]

I tried to play a couple of games were Tome of Battle was banned. I kind of doubt I'll ever do that again. (Seriously, a Warblade or swordsage is OP, but throwing 20th level fighters with noble title and all the logical resources of Nobles in a magic world AND full PC WBL for 20th was ok when the party are 2nd and 3rd level? )


Albions_Angel: The more I hear about this, the more I think the response should have been "Ok, you didn't want to read the whole book, fine and dandy. Here's how that boss did that. Here's how the Monks doing what he does. Here's how you can work with that sort of thing next time. " Stick there noses in the fact that it was there own stubbornness that was hurting them, not the book.


Maybe even ask the guy with a Swordsage level to temp swap to one of there precious approved builds for a few sessions on a different character (Monk was off for a family matter or something.) and given them a nasty taste of monsters using competent tactics described in the fluff sections of the books and justified by the higher mental stats to utterly ruin there usual tactics even when it looked like it should have worked.


Make them come to terms with how the game, as actually written if you take the pre 3E era rose colored nostalgia goggles off, plays, and that tome of battle is kind of bloody necessary if your not going to use able magic or be a nich build like an ubercharger.



Course I would have warned them up front before they had a chance to turn there nose up at the book to be ready for a higher difficulty level then they were accustomed too as well. And that this new book would be there to help anyone who didn't want to be a caster.

Puts them on the defensive. Now it's not broken, it's an expected part of the game, and if it's hurting them not to use it, there the one's doing it wrong, not you, and they were warned this might prove to be the case if they acted like that. So now they've no one to blame but themselves.

[Crake]

I had a DM who soft banned me from his table by banning or heavily nerfing everything I wanted to play.

[Marlowe]

I wouldn't say knee-jerk, but I have banned ToB and Psionics solely because I'm honestly not bothered reading them - that being said if there's something in those books that a player wants to use that doesnt actually utilize the systems in said books I'll give it a go ahead, for example; the aptitude enhancement from ToB.

I haven't technically banned MoI yet, but that's because my players don't care about it either.

I have to admit, this sounds like the laziest and worst possible reason to ban anything. If you're going to be a DM you should at least learn how to play the game. We don't like psionics much, simply because it doesn't strike us as different enough from regular Vancian casting to be worth existing. But if somebody really wanted to play a psionic character we'd at least try to keep up.

As for banning ToB, well fine. I can play a Wizard or a Druid or a Cleric. Hell, let's all save time and play nothing but those. But don't expect me to play some fundamentally useless core martial class and expect me to not understand the basic futility of trying to make them remotely relevant.

[Albions_Angel]

I am not going to punish my players for not liking a book. Thats really petty. ToB wasnt vital to my campaign setting, nor was it necessary to include it to level the playing field with our group dynamic. So when 80% of the table found issue with it, it was easier to remove it from play.

Also, banning books because you cant read them is fine. Not all of us are rich enough to own ALL the 3.5e books and some people are not morally ok with using torrents or collation sites.

Thats why Psionics has historically been banned in my group. Before I DMed, it was banned because no one owned the book and 3 of the players were against using pirate sources. Yes its in the SRD, but they didnt really like that either, feeling it fell in a grey area. I know it doesnt, but its not worth those arguments.

I had fun in my group with the books we used. I am not going to leave a bunch of good friends over an unnecessary splat book. And any DM that wants to restrict the books used because they dont understand the material is perfectly at liberty to do so. Thats not the "Worst" reason to ban something. There are so many other reasons that are far worse, like methodically banning a single players builds, or banning spirit shamans because they have a native american connotation and the DM is racist. Some people have a good understanding of certain books and dont have the money, time or desire to learn a bunch of new rules. I am not one of them, I love to read new splat books (yes, even the Spell Compendium and the MIC, slowly working my way through the former and have read the latter cover to cover), but dont go telling DMs they suck because they banned some books they dont know.

[BowStreetRunner]

For the moment I will hold out on my own experiences and trickle them in as I hear others experiences.

All right, Theobod. It's been two pages. Time to trickle in some experiences! ;)

[ZamielVanWeber]

My DM bans Duskblade because the worst player in our group can use it well and Darkstalker because it makes it hard for him to use monsters that use alternate senses. Sucks to be a rogue I guess?

[Theobod]

All right, Theobod. It's been two pages. Time to trickle in some experiences! ;)

Quite right!
Some corkers here already, so:
I have run games that abided by certain thematics, so for some I have flat out banned magic in any form (a desertscape Psionic game) and have also banned starting as certain classes (A low magic game, the players were banned from begining with any magic and had to find tutelage elsewhere to learn/realise potential)
I have also ran 'tiered' games, so for instance: Tier 3 only, all tier 1-2 and 4-5 are banned, even for dips. This has lead to a particular power level the game required to run as expected and I (and my players, who were involved in the design process) found this quite justified.

Now for some that scored me some flak:
I also have the tendency to 'call a spade a spade', in that I am careful to only allow Ex abilities that fit my definition of Ex: and to make Ex certain Su: abilities that are, in my mind, inherently non magical, controversial examples: In Wounds and Vitality flat healing is wounds and dice healing is vitality, the Crusader maneuvers heal both and Wound healing is, in my mind, magical if it can happen immediately, as such they were given the Su tag, this was considered by a few to be a serious nerf, especially when I ran a non magic WnV game, ditto on the Shadow Hand teleports. Conversely a lot of so called supernatural uses of Ki I have classed to be Ex, which interestingly (and as expected) nobody objected to.

More to come in another page or two ;)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

In my younger days I used to soft-ban everything I hadn't read. Basically the player would have to give me a strong sales pitch/info session to let in content. I did it out of sheer laziness, but it did help me learn about new content.

[ZamielVanWeber]

In my younger days I used to soft-ban everything I hadn't read. Basically the player would have to give me a strong sales pitch/info session to let in content. I did it out of sheer laziness, but it did help me learn about new content.

That is not a terrible policy actually. It is why I tend to ban Dragon Magazine: there is simply too much content for me to sift through.

[Necroticplague]

To be fair, in terms of most books, only a little bit of content will actually be used, so even introducing a new source usually doesn't mean that much reading. I.e, even allowing all of deities and demigods doesn't mean i need to have read everything in it, just the feats the players intend to take from it.

[Beowulf DW]

Fortunately for me, the DMs I play with are also good friends of mine with terrific understandings of the system. As such, the only things that get banned or adjusted are typically things that would make the game drag on. Even in situations were some DMs might be inclined to ban something, they're usually pretty cool about it provided everybody is having fun.

[illyahr]

I've banned certain versions of classes, simply because they would underperform. I run a 3.5 campaign where the monk is soft banned. I instead prefer people to use the Pathfinder Unchained version, which I have backported. I also created a fighter homebrew that gives the fighter some battlefield versatility and a little extra power since feat tax is a thing.

There is a sort of soft ban on chaotic stupid or lawful stupid alignments. When things like that happen, I usually find creative ways to take the character out of the game somehow. I make sure to warn my players that I do this so that no one screws over their party members. Other than that, I basically allow my players to run free and do the heroic (or otherwise) stuff they want to do. I allow this because the people I play with run low- to mid-op. Nothing they pull of is beyond my ability to work with.

[WarKitty]

I did force-upgrade a few 3.5 classes (such as the rogue) to the pathfinder versions, just to give them a leg up. I'm not sure that really counts as a soft ban though.

[martixy]

The only thing I've knee-jerk banned(as in saw it and within 2 seconds went 'yep, no player of mine is ever doing that in the game') is DCFS.

[Marlowe]

[Several paragraphs of precise but inaccurate hectoring]

He didn't say he banned it because he DIDN'T HAVE IT. He said he banned it because HE COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ IT. A difference not subtle. If I got such a ban from a DM I'd wonder what else he hadn't bothered to read. I've had the experience of being stuck with a DM who didn't know the core rules. Several times. It's not one I want to repeat.

I'm not overly fond of the Native American theme on the Spirit Shaman myself but that's just because I read too much Andre Norton when I was younger and she uses Space/Fantasy Native American motifs a little much.

[ekarney]

I have to admit, this sounds like the laziest and worst possible reason to ban anything. If you're going to be a DM you should at least learn how to play the game. We don't like psionics much, simply because it doesn't strike us as different enough from regular Vancian casting to be worth existing. But if somebody really wanted to play a psionic character we'd at least try to keep up.

As for banning ToB, well fine. I can play a Wizard or a Druid or a Cleric. Hell, let's all save time and play nothing but those. But don't expect me to play some fundamentally useless core martial class and expect me to not understand the basic futility of trying to make them remotely relevant.

Seeing as I work full time, and subsequently play D&D as a hobby not professionally I read through the books at my own leisure I don't feel that it's required for me to read through books that my players have expressed no interest in using. Plus if I just give them the go ahead without reading the book it makes tailoring challenges to the players a lot harder since I have no idea what they're capable of doing or how they do it. I don't have an objection to the systems, but without knowing them I can't DM them effectively.

And I never said I restricted martials to core only, but built well they're not useless, it just requires some basic character investment other than "Fighter 20 with TWF" though I do lighten the load on martials by removing feat requirements, and allowing subsequent feats in chains to be gained for free. Example: You take TWF as soon as you're eligible, you get ITWF for free as soon as you meet the level/ability requirements.

[Marlowe]

Seeing as I work full time, and subsequently play D&D as a hobby not professionally I read through the books at my own leisure I don't feel that it's required for me to read through books that my players have expressed no interest in using. Plus if I just give them the go ahead without reading the book it makes tailoring challenges to the players a lot harder since I have no idea what they're capable of doing or how they do it. I don't have an objection to the systems, but without knowing them I can't DM them effectively.


That sounds fair enough. Although you're not really "banning" them as simply not using them.

My apologies all the same.

[elonin]

In my younger days I used to soft-ban everything I hadn't read. Basically the player would have to give me a strong sales pitch/info session to let in content. I did it out of sheer laziness, but it did help me learn about new content.

That one is understandable. People who ban psionics don't know the restrictions on those abilities or how they're balanced and heard of people misusing psionic powers. Or maybe not liking that pure psionicists can nova throwing off an encounter. I suspect the same for TOB but am not familiar with that material.

The Monk ban is hilarious. As is the ban on druid for being weak. That deserves special mention as sometimes i like to play weaker builds for the challenge (though druid doesn't exactly qualify).

I have had a dm in a pathfinder game who allowed some 3.5 content and allowed (encouraged really) leadership, which frankly never turned out as badly as i would have predicted due to the relative power level being aimed at our table. Strangely enough he did have an issue with practiced caster and I suspect it is cause he wasn't sure how it would impact my power level (was playing ranger7 wiz 3, AA). Would have let me use a trait for each casting class for +2 cl.

[nyjastul69]

I have had several bad experiences with evil characters. Banned unless lifted upon request.

Other than that my group doesn't really need to ban anything. We all abide by a gentleman's agreement.

I don't think a DM should be expected to read and understand a subsystem he doesn't really want to read or use. Individual spells, feats, items, etc. should be too much to ask though.

[WarKitty]

I have had several bad experiences with evil characters. Banned unless lifted upon request.

Other than that my group doesn't really need to ban anything. We all abide by a gentleman's agreement.

I don't think a DM should be expected to read and understand a subsystem he doesn't really want to read or use. Individual spells, feats, items, etc. should be too much to ask though.

I think it depends somewhat on the subsystem too. I'd be more open to reading ToB because it's such a needed upgrade for melee. Psionics is more meh - I don't feel like it adds a huge amount to the game for being a whole new subsystem.

[LTwerewolf]

I think it depends somewhat on the subsystem too. I'd be more open to reading ToB because it's such a needed upgrade for melee. Psionics is more meh - I don't feel like it adds a huge amount to the game for being a whole new subsystem.

I disagree. In fact I rather loathe the entire vancian system, and welcomed psionics.

[dehro]

every campaign I've played with my current group has seen psionics banned and monks. the rationale is that we all agree that they don't really fit, flavourwise with how we see the fantasy realms we play in (mostly faerun based)...
personally, I just dislike the concept of psionics in fantasy in general.. it seems much more to the point in a sci-fi setting... as for the other players and the DMs, it may also be that they don't know the mechanics and can't be bothered to learn them.
monks, as they are detailed, should belong to an asian setting.
so.. yeah.. it's mostly a matter of personal taste.

[Name1]

I wonder what the problem with evil characters is... I used to play CE quite frequently and never encountered a problem that resulted in infighting or something similar.

I mean, when it comes down to it, someone has to get the Fist of Raziel and the Dread Necromancer to work together and has to tell them to suck it up for the good of the party, and since the Rogue isn't bothering to help me with it, I gotta do that alone, and you can't do that without beig willing to make compromises and listen to both sides, so that's kinda the only alignment that fits the bill, 'cause it's the only one that lacks a list of things it wouldn't do to keep the party going.

Though I have also been told that I act OOC sometimes. Maybe I just suck at playing CE... Though I'd still say that blanket-banning the alignment is not necessary as long as no one is being mean because of it.

[LTwerewolf]

Most people just go full stupid evil, and don't do things like "play an intelligence score over 4" or "have any sense of self preservation."

[MesiDoomstalker]

I wonder what the problem with evil characters is... I used to play CE quite frequently and never encountered a problem that resulted in infighting or something similar.

I mean, when it comes down to it, someone has to get the Fist of Raziel and the Dread Necromancer to work together and has to tell them to suck it up for the good of the party, and since the Rogue isn't bothering to help me with it, I gotta do that alone, and you can't do that without beig willing to make compromises and listen to both sides, so that's kinda the only alignment that fits the bill, 'cause it's the only one that lacks a list of things it wouldn't do to keep the party going.

Though I have also been told that I act OOC sometimes. Maybe I just suck at playing CE... Though I'd still say that blanket-banning the alignment is not necessary as long as no one is being mean because of it.

Because some players use that big fat E as an excuse to be a jerk. And other times, they use that big fat E as an excuse to be Team Killing ***tards to quote RvB. And other other times, they use that big fat E as an excuse to play simply uninspired, cliched boring characters.

And sometimes, the players/DM want to play a game where everyone are Big Damn Heroes who are Morally Right and fight The Bad Guys. Such games are tarnished by the Token Evil Character because they standout, drawing extra attention to themselves and strain verisimilitude (Why would these paragon's of Good associate with him?) There are plenty of reasons to limit the alignment of players. I know I tend to run games where everyone in the party should have a reason to, organically, follow the plot and that typically requires a morality north of neutral.

The only thing I've banned was Force-Sensitive characters in FFG Star Wars game, because it was our first experience with the system and I foresaw my players gimping themselves by trying to do too much at once with their experience. Try and failing to be the Jack-of-all-trades by being barely passable at everything and competent at nothing.

[Ortesk]

Things I have had banned on me:

Vow of Peace: said it made me too strong.
Vow of poverty: Same as above.
Orc's: Because +4 strength at LA +0 is too powerful

Thing's I have banned:
Anti-Magic Field: My previous DM swore that a mage was only good against several weaker enemies, and a fighter was a far better character at high level. So, banned AMF because mages were already underpowered...Yeah, I put that back in after seeing a decent player play a wizard ( I had seen 3, and they did boom spell +teleport/Mind control...no transmutation or conjuration)

Mord Dysjunction: A player dropped it on one of the big bads in my game, so I shrugged and used it when they fought the biggest enemy (a properly played wizard, thanks again for the advice Ryu :p) and they got mad. So, we agreed to ban the spell

[Zanos]

Mord Dysjunction: A player dropped it on one of the big bads in my game, so I shrugged and used it when they fought the biggest enemy (a properly played wizard, thanks again for the advice Ryu :p) and they got mad. So, we agreed to ban the spell
FWIW Disjunction is one of those asymmetric abilities that is actually much stronger against players than NPCs because it has a lasting effect that doesn't usually matter when your role in the game is to die at the end of the combat. When used on players, it destroys their gear(and you spend 20 minutes rolling will saves). When used on NPCs...it destroys gear that would have been the players pretty shortly.

Poison, disease, and rust monsters fill similar roles.

[Sian]

I just dislike the concept of psionics in fantasy in general.. it seems much more to the point in a sci-fi setting

Refluff it as mana that refills every night ... that should be enough to make it fit better, since mana is how magic work in just about all 'non-d&d derived' Computer RPGs (specially jrpg)

[dehro]

Refluff it as mana that refills every night ... that should be enough to make it fit better, since mana is how magic work in just about all 'non-d&d derived' Computer RPGs (specially jrpg)

except, indeed, then it feels more like a computer game..
I fail to see the point of having to "adapt/refluff" things, when there are already so many magic systems and classes that I find work better for me.
ToB, binding.. there are plenty of magic systems and martial systems that are already borderline "oddly-flavoured" (at least to my tastes).. We are experimenting with those.. there's really no need to add yet another one, especially when I then have to work on it to remove my feeling of "I might as well pull out a lightsaber/phaser").
we did use standard D&D rules and classes to run a short campaign in a sci-fi setting. That time, I could probably have conceived of psionics being used.. but it was a short campaign only, and nobody felt like reading up on a bunch of manuals and classes for 3-4 sessions worth of gaming.

[martixy]

FWIW Disjunction is one of those asymmetric abilities that is actually much stronger against players than NPCs because it has a lasting effect that doesn't usually matter when your role in the game is to die at the end of the combat. When used on players, it destroys their gear(and you spend 20 minutes rolling will saves). When used on NPCs...it destroys gear that would have been the players pretty shortly.

Poison, disease, and rust monsters fill similar roles.

@ortesk
With Mordekainen's Dysfunction, I'm fond of making the gear destruction aspect take 1 round to cast. Gives everyone a turn to get the hell out or counter. The standard action cast merely suppresses them for a few hours. Speeding up rolling also helps immensely. One fair way is to take the mean. Determine the roll you need for a successful save - say 15. Choose 30% of your items, which save. The rest are suppressed/disjoined.

(Did I pop your cherry again? :smallbiggrin: )

@dehro
You say that Mana makes it feel more videogamey and that bothers you, but you fail to see the point of refluffing?
How does that work?

[dehro]

@ortesk
@dehro
You say that Mana makes it feel more videogamey and that bothers you, but you fail to see the point of refluffing?
How does that work?
not sure how refluffing something I don't really like much into something else that doesn't feel right either should solve the issue. That said, the reason why I don't feel like taking on psionics and refluffing them is simple:
I'm lazy.
If I have to pick between
1)read a bunch of manuals/classes, convince my DM to also read up on them and learn the game mechanics of yet another variant set of rules, put together a build (something which I have a track record of being terrible at), finally refluff them by developing new perspective/fluff/content for the just learned classes and gaming mechanics
2) pick something else amongst the host of stuff that my DM is already familiar with and can help me with.. something that is already fluff-equipped

well.. you see where I'm going with this...

[Name1]

not sure how refluffing something I don't really like much into something else that doesn't feel right either should solve the issue. That said, the reason why I don't feel like taking on psionics and refluffing them is simple:
I'm lazy.
If I have to pick between
1)read a bunch of manuals/classes, convince my DM to also read up on them and learn the game mechanics of yet another variant set of rules, put together a build (something which I have a track record of being terrible at), finally refluff them by developing new perspective/fluff/content for the just learned classes and gaming mechanics
2) pick something else amongst the host of stuff that my DM is already familiar with and can help me with.. something that is already fluff-equipped

well.. you see where I'm going with this...

Well, I suppose that's your point of view then. Personally, I can relate: When I used to DM for my first time, I didn't wanna read too much either, so I banned feats ('cause there are like, hundreds of them and I thought them confusing) and the decided that I didn't really want to read the wall of text concerning this confusing (sp), (su), (ex)-stuff either. And I mean, none of them really fit into fantasy anyway. You don't see, like, Gandalf or Harry Potter carry around a spell book, right? Talking about spells, all this weird prepared and spontaeous and there were SO MANY spells... yeah, no way I was gonna do that to myself.

Though, over time, I sorta figured that I might give my players the chance to play what they wanted instead of disallowing all classes using these confusing rules, and they seemed to enjoy the game a lot more after that (I know I did).

So yeah, while I can see where you are coming from, I'd also suggest you may still read up on them. Maybe you are like my players and me and find some enjoyment in them. And if not... It just means that if someone wants to use them, they can, 'cause now you know the rules.

[digiman619]

While I can respect the opinion of "I don't know the rules for <insert subsystem here>, so I'm not comfortable with you using it", "I banned <insert subsystem here> because I never bothered to learn it" is another matter. I mean, if none of your players ever expressed interest in psionics or Tome of Battle/Path of War or whatever other subsystem, then you not knowing the rules by heart is totally fine. But once one of you player says "I want to play a <insert practitioner of subsystem here>", if you have access to the appropriate books (because you shouldn't have to buy a $50 book because of an off comment of one of your players), you owe it to them to at least take a bona fide look at the subsystem, get a feel for it, and then after seeing how that subsystem would affect your campaign, decide yay or nay.

tl;dr: If none of your players use <subsystem>, not knowing it is fine. If one of them wants to use it, you have to at least consider it.

[LastOblivion]

Rather then Outright ban things, I tend to have a list of things that Require my permission to use. I've had a few "anything goes" campaigns that have turned into massive pains by free range munchkinry to the point that almost banned Faerun over it, but other than that I only have 5 things i currently ban.

-Faerie Mysteries Init.
-White Dragon Spawn template - Notably the "abomination" variant
-Unseelie Fey
-Truenamer - Not because I think its strong but rather that you have to optimize it to an insane degree to make it even workable.
-The LA1 Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre Water Orc

[Name1]

-The LA1 Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre Water Orc

I just laughed so hard. I know this is pretty OP in it's own way, but... it just seems so specific it caught me totally of guard XD

[dehro]

Well, I suppose that's your point of view then. Personally, I can relate: When I used to DM for my first time, I didn't wanna read too much either, so I banned feats ('cause there are like, hundreds of them and I thought them confusing) and the decided that I didn't really want to read the wall of text concerning this confusing (sp), (su), (ex)-stuff either. And I mean, none of them really fit into fantasy anyway. You don't see, like, Gandalf or Harry Potter carry around a spell book, right? Talking about spells, all this weird prepared and spontaeous and there were SO MANY spells... yeah, no way I was gonna do that to myself.

Though, over time, I sorta figured that I might give my players the chance to play what they wanted instead of disallowing all classes using these confusing rules, and they seemed to enjoy the game a lot more after that (I know I did).

So yeah, while I can see where you are coming from, I'd also suggest you may still read up on them. Maybe you are like my players and me and find some enjoyment in them. And if not... It just means that if someone wants to use them, they can, 'cause now you know the rules.
I feel like I'm giving the wrong impression here... Maybe misrepresenting our gaming group...
I'm the player in this situation, not the DM and the number of characters (some with rather exotic classes or races) I run through during a single campaign is... Considerable and can attest to the flexibility of the two DMs who have run the campaigns so far. As a matter of fact, psionics, incarnum and setting specific classes such as samurai, are pretty much the only thing I haven't tried yet. One of the DMs even read up on the ToB when I decided to try a warblade build.
It just so happens that none of the other players and neither of the DMs are interested in exploring psionics and we already have dozens of classes to play with in pretty much every other book, which are all accessible.
I've read up on psionic classesin the past, and even like a couple of them... Just not in our faerun setting...but haven't bothered with the gaming mechanics, something with which I have a hard time at the best of times, so to read those without a compelling necessity would be a waste of effort.

[FearlessGnome]

-The LA1 Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre Water Orc

Wouldn't this be +2LA? Half-Minotaur and Half-Ogre are each +1. In addition, you only get the size increase for one of them. So a Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre goblin/halfling/gnome would have higher strength than the Water Orc.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Wouldn't this be +2LA? Half-Minotaur and Half-Ogre are each +1. In addition, you only get the size increase for one of them. So a Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre goblin/halfling/gnome would have higher strength than the Water Orc.

There's a Drag Mag template of Half-Ogre that states the LA-1 ONLY applies if Size increases. So people use Minotaur to increase in Size first, then tack on Ogre for free since they're already large. I've seen that combo many.. many times at our table..

[LTwerewolf]

I've read up on psionic classesin the past, and even like a couple of them... Just not in our faerun setting...but haven't bothered with the gaming mechanics, something with which I have a hard time at the best of times, so to read those without a compelling necessity would be a waste of effort.

Pretty sure faerune was the first setting psionics ever showed up in. That's the weirdest one to not be ok with it.

[nyjastul69]

Pretty sure faerune was the first setting psionics ever showed up in. That's the weirdest one to not be ok with it.

Psionics first appeared in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D. The only official CS it ever seemed common in to me was Dark Sun.

[Ortesk]

@ortesk
With Mordekainen's Dysfunction, I'm fond of making the gear destruction aspect take 1 round to cast. Gives everyone a turn to get the hell out or counter. The standard action cast merely suppresses them for a few hours. Speeding up rolling also helps immensely. One fair way is to take the mean. Determine the roll you need for a successful save - say 15. Choose 30% of your items, which save. The rest are suppressed/disjoined.

(Did I pop your cherry again? :smallbiggrin: )


Oh god that thread, never have I seen so many downvotes/upvotes on me in one place haha. But, I digress.

And I just ban it, a good wizard dropping that on them would have so many buffs that a round delay still won't stop it. Though it could be used to teleport, whoever stays has their own fault haha.

[Big Fau]

Psionics first appeared in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D. The only official CS it ever seemed common in to me was Dark Sun.

Eberron has an entire continent, two PC races, a racial option for Warforged, an entire enemy subset, and 6 books with Psionic powers/items.

[Eisfalken]

Psionics first appeared in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D. The only official CS it ever seemed common in to me was Dark Sun.

Warning: old nerd stuff incoming.

Psionics wasn't common in Forgotten Realms, but it was definitely known. Mostly, it was the domain of aberration-style monsters like mind flayers and other weirdos, giving psionics something of an "alien" vibe, but there were a few other races with it. Same with Greyhawk, though it was even less common there since high-powered wizards and gods were almost as out of control as in FR. Krynn was more scarce on psionics than even Greyhawk; I think it is the only setting where psionics are definitely not presumed to even really exist in any numbers (mostly since the 2nd-3rd edition "split", where Krynn now exists in a totally different cosmology).

It was really fairly common in Spelljammer; not as common as wizards, clerics and specialty priests, but probably at least as common as a druids (arguably more so; psionics had almost no limits up there, druids were screwed for not being in a nature-oriented environment). I'd say psionics were probably on par with bards up there: both had unique abilities that were very suited to space ship travel. Ironically, ki-powered classes in Spelljammer were notoriously more common, because it was canon in Spelljammer that the larger Forgotten Realms Kara-Tur empire (Shou Lung?) had a freaking huge fleet of ships for space duty, and the arcanes actually provided ki-powered helms for the bastards (as well as psionic helms, and all the other weird ways to travel space they came up with).

That's one thing I loved about 3rd edition: once the first Psionic Handbook was out, it was presumed that all settings, starting with Greyhawk, had an increased psionic community than before. Nothing that overwrote the usual arcane/divine stuff that has always been king, but enough that you could introduce a little weirdness to the game without breaking it.

And people banning it for any reason other than campaign setting reasons are basically dumb. Very long argument cut short: you can't make a psion more powerful than a fully cheesed out God-wizard or CoDzilla, and there is a good reason Pun Pun wasn't built on a psionic chassis.

Edit: There was one other setting where psionics was semi-common: Ravenloft. Of course, like everything else, it was a case of "I wouldn't if I were you..."

[nyjastul69]

Eberron has an entire continent, two PC races, a racial option for Warforged, an entire enemy subset, and 6 books with Psionic powers/items.

Good point about Eberron. I frequently forget it exists.


Warning: old nerd stuff incoming.

Psionics wasn't common in Forgotten Realms, but it was definitely known. Mostly, it was the domain of aberration-style monsters like mind flayers and other weirdos, giving psionics something of an "alien" vibe, but there were a few other races with it. Same with Greyhawk, though it was even less common there since high-powered wizards and gods were almost as out of control as in FR. Krynn was more scarce on psionics than even Greyhawk; I think it is the only setting where psionics are definitely not presumed to even really exist in any numbers (mostly since the 2nd-3rd edition "split", where Krynn now exists in a totally different cosmology).

It was really fairly common in Spelljammer; not as common as wizards, clerics and specialty priests, but probably at least as common as a druids (arguably more so; psionics had almost no limits up there, druids were screwed for not being in a nature-oriented environment). I'd say psionics were probably on par with bards up there: both had unique abilities that were very suited to space ship travel. Ironically, ki-powered classes in Spelljammer were notoriously more common, because it was canon in Spelljammer that the larger Forgotten Realms Kara-Tur empire (Shou Lung?) had a freaking huge fleet of ships for space duty, and the arcanes actually provided ki-powered helms for the bastards (as well as psionic helms, and all the other weird ways to travel space they came up with).

That's one thing I loved about 3rd edition: once the first Psionic Handbook was out, it was presumed that all settings, starting with Greyhawk, had an increased psionic community than before. Nothing that overwrote the usual arcane/divine stuff that has always been king, but enough that you could introduce a little weirdness to the game without breaking it.

And people banning it for any reason other than campaign setting reasons are basically dumb. Very long argument cut short: you can't make a psion more powerful than a fully cheesed out God-wizard or CoDzilla, and there is a good reason Pun Pun wasn't built on a psionic chassis.

Edit: There was one other setting where psionics was semi-common: Ravenloft. Of course, like everything else, it was a case of "I wouldn't if I were you..."

I don't think that people who ban psionics for reasons other than setting reasons are stupid. I've done so. I don't feel stupid.

[AnachroNinja]

This is legitimately not directed at you, just a general thing... Stupid people generally never feel like they are stupid. That's why they're dangerous.


Also faerun has a whole house of dark elves who are psionic, though they did eventually get wiped out. In the end I disagree with banning psionics just because it really is a smoother and more balanced system. I get that the fluff doesn't appeal to everyone but you can modify that easily.

[BowStreetRunner]

In the end I disagree with banning psionics just because it really is a smoother and more balanced system. I get that the fluff doesn't appeal to everyone but you can modify that easily.
I've seen several instances where DMs refluffed psionics. In one they used the Psionics mechanic to replace Sorcerers. Wizardry and Sorcery were at odds with on another, with Sorcery being inherent and Wizardry learned. In another they used it to replaced all the vancian casting classes. Psionic rules were just how magic worked in that setting.

[Khedrac]

I have met far too many players who misuse sub-systems to simply trust the player to get all the rules right regarding part of the game with which I am not familiar.
Am I saying they cheat? No, actually I think it is (nearly) all unintentional (possibly they spot something interesting and get carried away without checking if it actually works).

However the net result is that I don't allow the use of material on which I don't think I can rule fairly what happens without having to stop the game to look stuff up every few minutes.
Currently this probably would mean psionics, (but if a player wanted to use it I probably would try and get up to speed to allow them).

Happily I normally encounter this problem in areas I do have a fair knowledge of (I won't say 'good' as the typical one is grappling...). However I do regard this as good justification for banning material. It's not that I don't trust people's honesty, it's that I don't trust their competence until I have reviewed the material in question!

As an old 1st Ed AD&D player I admit to a bias against psionics that I don't think is justified in 3.5 - limited vulnerability. Psionics in first Ed had some drawbacks (on the rare occasions the PC actually meets multiple psionic monsters) but was usually a straight bonus for the PC without drawbacks - and "unbalanced" the game somewhat. As such, unless the DM was going to includes a reasonable (if small) percentage of psionic encounters it wasn't wise to allow psionics.

On the more modern side, consider Incarnum.
Incarnum is a nice system, fairly well thought out (if badly edited) that adds flexibility to characters.
Now if the party possesses one incarnum user, but never encounters another, that character is likely to have some distinct advantages that are, perhaps, undeserved.
(Equally, it is totally unfair if every caster they meet has the spells that strip essential and unbind soulmelds.)

Even if the DM isn't prepared to state that "incarnum is not a thing" in the campaign world (they may want to introduce it later, or have the option) it can be thematically inappropriate to allow it for a specific campaign.

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

All of the above is more about "bans" than "knee-jerk bans".
I do think that banning anything as a knee-jerk reaction is wrong. At most the DM should ask the player to refrain from using something for the rest of the session then try to think through the implications and discuss the problem to develop a longer term strategy.

[Theobod]

Back again for another wave of my own bans!

So, in a way, I have banned the attention rods needed to use Plane Shift. I should clarify: the rods exist, but because they were not very well defined I have stated in my current PbP game (see sig) that they are too large to be in the standard spell component pouches, instead writing up the materials and methods of attenuation for each one separately in my planer cosmology post. I believe this is justified, making their acquisition an exp worthy endeavour in its own right and lending a bit more mystery and difficulty to plane hopping, I have had no complaints.

I have also, in several but not all games, as well as for not all classes within individual games, banned blanket refluffing of whole classes and systems, instead requiring individual refluffing of smaller chunks to be done on a case by case basis. Some examples include: happy to remove the monastic fluff from monk in favor of self taught meditative martial artist, had a 'battle meditation' refluffing for Rage before. Not happy however to refluff psionics as runes, wanting it to be its own 'thing' and being quite happy with it as is. I have also had no complaints here.

On a related note to the last example, I have banned Magic-Psionic Transparency wholesale. It hasn't caused any problems and, in fact, my players insist and I concur.

More to come in a couple pages time!

[EldritchWeaver]

I have basically banned core magic and Tier 1, 5, and 6 classes, replacing them with options from Spheres of Power and Path of War. The reason is to remove the imbalance between classes. I also banned stuff I haven't read yet or not intending to do. That being said, I'm willing to consider new material, it's just that I'm too busy actually read everything and to some extent I need system mastery, so I can't stretch myself to thin.

[arclance]

This is true, though an across-the-board ban isn't the best way to handle that imo. Just as with RL, evil jerks exist. Doesn't mean they can't work with a party and be a functioning member of a team though.

I agree, it's pretty much always the player and they use the alignment as an excuse. "But I'm CN/NE/CE/LE! I have to be an asshat!"
Most DMs here ban Evil and Chaotic Neutral because they have players who cannot resist the urge to roleplay an asshat who cannot function as a member of a team if they are allowed them.
Most of the problem players can resist the urge with a little help from other players if they don't come to the game with a character of those alignments.

The ones who can't roleplay anything but an asshat usually get banned from playing in a DMs game.


None of the DMs I want to play with who run Pathfinder around here allow 3rd Party or 3.5 content in their games.
They don't want to take time to evaluate what is balanced for their games yet they allow literally everything published by Paizio with the caveat that they may ban anything they find unbalanced in their game.