Do you ban class in your games?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Hello guys :)

After a talk with my group I was wondering about what class people ban and why.


I will start:
I ban Paladins. In my games they are for NPCs only because they limit the players and the stuff I want them to do. -And because I hate them, but this is a secret(that all my friends know)-.

[RoboEmperor]

We don't ban classes. We ban other things like Lawful Stupid or TO builds.

[Silva Stormrage]

I ban classes yes if I feel there is no real way for them to exist in the setting without causing problems. This isn't even necessarily a balance reason sometimes classes don't fit in with a setting. For example my first campaign setting had wizards be banned not because they were overpowered but because the world had literally just receieved arcane magic ~20 years ago and it was just manifiesting in people via sorcerous talent. No one had time to study for it.

In my current setting I have banned a few classes

Base Classes: Psychic Artificer (It just doesn't work and is oddly klunky), and Spell To Power Erudite (It's just too strong)

Prestige Classes:
Spell dancer (Too powerful with persist)
Planar Shepherd (Too powerful with certain planes and Druid's don't need the help)
Dweomerkeeper (Too Powerful)
Incantrix (Too Powerful)
Thrallherd (Waaay too annoying to deal with and powerful also due to the setting background if someone did manage to become one they would immediately die and the surrounding 1000 miles would be incinerated to a crisp)
Hulking Hurler (It just scales oddly compared to the rest of D&D)
Cancer Mage (It either does nothing or breaks everything in half)
Illithid Savant (Even for an NPC class it's broken)
Beholder Mage (Same as above)
Ur Priest (This one is setting fluff. Gods just started forming like 100 years ago, no one has figured out how to siphon their magic without getting stomped. If a PC had a good reason for figuring it out I would allow it)
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil (Dislike the class frankly)

Now do I NEED to ban ilithid savant? No, I highly doubt any of my players will ever try to use that class and if they did I would probably laugh and tell them now. But my ban list functions for both sides of the screen so it's more of a "Yes these classes don't exist in the setting, don't worry about trying to counter their abilities".

[SangoProduction]

Depends on the game. For example: if you're playing in the setting of Berserk, then paladins don't make sense, as such paragons of good just don't fit in the world.

[skunk3]

In my group there are two DM's and we play two games and switch back and forth every once in a while. I'm a relative newcomer to the group as the other people have played together for quite a while and they both ban certain classes or at least impose nerfs to certain things. They also ban certain feats and make it nearly impossible to get your hands on certain magic items.

[Falontani]

3 classes is all I ban. And then I tell everyone that if they break the game I'll break it back.
Beholder Mage
Illithid Savant
Tainted Scholar

Everything else is free game and no one has made me regret it yet.

[Selene Sparks]

I don't ban anything in my games, and I've frankly never understood the desire to. The end result is what matters to me, and I don't really care how they get there. Plus my players are mature adults, so if there's a problem, I can just talk to them about it.

[NerdHut]

I have yet to ban classes specifically. I only allow specific books and specific homebrew, and so some classes have been included. Factotum, for instance, is a class my group has had a really bad experience with, so it was no big loss when I didn't include Dungeonscape on my allowed books list.

I have banned some variants, however. Namely Domain Wizard, since its "trade-off" is more spells known and per day in exchange for... not being able to specialize? If you weren't already planning to specialize, it's purely gain for an already powerful class known for its ability to break the game.

I understand why many people ban paladins. The roleplay aspect of it tends to get frustrating sometimes. My solution has been to relax the restrictions a little, and going forward I will probably allow players to use 5e's vows as a replacement for 3.5's alignment-based restrictions.

[Florian]

I don´t ban classes per se, I ban entire sub-systems that I don't want to deal with, for example Psi.

[noce]

Our DM doesn't want to learn ToM and MoI, so we know we will encounter no NPCs with those classes.

He gave the reason that users of those type of subsystems are seen as the spawn of the only evil god of the setting (yes, even Good Incarnates), and thus killed on sight.
He didn't explicitly ban those books, just warned us there would be...consequences.

[lylsyly]

Every other 1-20 campaign I DM I run a VERY Restrictive set of rules. SRD only, lot's of it cut out. No wizards, clerics, druids, or sorcerers. No spells over 5th level (poor bard). No magic items over +3, and none that need a banned spell to create. No 1 level dips (must take at least 3 levels of any class you enter). A gritty, cataclysm devastated world in a game that is very combat oriented.

I do kinda balance things out. The three casting classes get spells from L1, all three casters (and two prcs that grant their own casting) are spontaneous caster classes. Taking three levels of two spellcasting classes doesn't give you more spells per day but does open up the spell list for your use. All but two prestige classes are essentially gestalts of the two or three classes you must have to enter. All but one prc is 14 levels long (the other is 11).

It's different, but it works for us. All six of us have been together for years, we all dm (we play 4 games a week) and we always have fun.

just my 2 cp
YMMV

[Quertus]

I can't say I've ever banned any classes, homebrew not withstanding.


For example my first campaign setting had wizards be banned not because they were overpowered but because the world had literally just receieved arcane magic ~20 years ago and it was just manifiesting in people via sorcerous talent. No one had time to study for it.

Ur Priest (This one is setting fluff. Gods just started forming like 100 years ago, no one has figured out how to siphon their magic without getting stomped. If a PC had a good reason for figuring it out I would allow it)

You have some curious notions of how long it takes to learn stuff. Look at how far computers have come. Then again, I believe Wizard magic was traditionally taught to the younger races by dragons, deities, etc, so I may be a bit off in my expectations.


Now do I NEED to ban ilithid savant? No, I highly doubt any of my players will ever try to use that class and if they did I would probably laugh and tell them now.


3 classes is all I ban. And then I tell everyone that if they break the game I'll break it back.
Beholder Mage
Illithid Savant
Tainted Scholar

I've played Illithid Savant, Tainted Sorcerer, and Maho-Bujin. And I never broke the game. Well, ok, the Thrull Herd my Illithid Savant ate kinda broke the background (my city was happily feasting on huge numbers of automatically replenishing willing sacrifice victims), and I made myself a Very Important Person to my society, but that was fluff - my crunch was the weakest in the party.


Our DM doesn't want to learn ToM and MoI, so we know we will encounter no NPCs with those classes.

He gave the reason that users of those type of subsystems are seen as the spawn of the only evil god of the setting (yes, even Good Incarnates), and thus killed on sight.
He didn't explicitly ban those books, just warned us there would be...consequences.

That sounds horrible.

[Elkad]

Our DM doesn't want to learn ToM and MoI, so we know we will encounter no NPCs with those classes.

He gave the reason that users of those type of subsystems are seen as the spawn of the only evil god of the setting (yes, even Good Incarnates), and thus killed on sight.
He didn't explicitly ban those books, just warned us there would be...consequences.


That sounds horrible.


A setting where something(s) is/are illegal makes sense. Doesn't matter whether it's MoI, poison, piercing weapons, machine guns, having dragonblood, or whatever else.

Bonus points if you turn the game into Paranoia and give everyone a useful power off the "this will get you killed if anyone sees you use it" list.

[zlefin]

I don't ban any classes, never felt the need to do so. most problems that would occur I'd deal with via another route/adjusting roleplaying restrictions or talking to the players.

I'm not counting situations ofc where a class isn't banned as such but it's simply a side effect of other things (e.g. in an evil campaign obviously you can't play a good paladin; or sources not allowed because of unfamiliar with the material)

[Quertus]

A setting where something(s) is/are illegal makes sense.

Oh, sorry, brevity was clearly not the essence of clarity there. Yes, that can make sense. But not being bothered to learn something, and so, instead, labeling it as the spawn of evil? That doesn't sound like the stuff good GMs are made of. That sounds like the stuff... well, the stuff humanity is made of, actually.

Truly horrifying.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Silva Stormrage
For example my first campaign setting had wizards be banned not because they were overpowered but because the world had literally just receieved arcane magic ~20 years ago and it was just manifiesting in people via sorcerous talent. No one had time to study for it.


Originally Posted by Quertus
You have some curious notions of how long it takes to learn stuff. Look at how far computers have come.

This is an unfair comparison. Computers have come a long way in twenty years because we built them. We understand them inside and out because they’re based on principles we’ve experimented with and documented thoroughly for many decades.

The fact is, we didn’t start building computers twenty years ago, or even forty years ago; there’s been continuous effort for seventy years or more, and of course there were early attempts much further in the past. We designed computers from the ground up, over a long period of time, and they've been able to advance rapidly in the past twenty years because we've built up a tremendous body of theory and experience regarding their design.

By contrast, arcane magic is by definition something obscure and paranatural that follows unknown and unsuspected principles, a manifestation of hidden forces which humans had no part in shaping. If Silva’s world has just started manifesting arcane effects in the past twenty years, that’s somewhere between Charles Babbage and Alexander Graham Bell. It’s perfectly reasonable that people are still struggling to understand the basics, especially if the societies of the day don’t have an underlying culture of methodical experimentation.


Originally Posted by Florian
I don´t ban classes per se, I ban entire sub-systems that I don't want to deal with, for example Psi.

Same here. I run Pathfinder, and I pretty much keep to first-party Paizo material.

The only two classes I won’t use are the summoner, because it has issues, and the gunslinger, because I have my own approach to firearms. I don’t worry about banning PrCs because most of the troublesome ones don’t occur in Pathfinder.

As for paladins, one of my players has a character concept involving a paladin which sounds great, and I’m glad to let him put it into practice. He’s an excellent roleplayer and I have no worries about his handing of the character.

[Malimar]

In 3.5 online, I pretty much don't ban any classes (from the sources I allow, anyway). Even Ur-Priest is on the table, though Beholder Mage probably isn't. Though I would probably disallow STP Erudite if anybody asked for it.

In the most recent Pathfinder game I ran in meatspace, I banned Summoner, because the group is too large and people with minions taking effectively multiple turns was slowing the game down (and the minionless Summoner archetype is notoriously OP). For the same reason, I also made anybody who would get a pet or minion take an archetype that swaps it for something that doesn't get such a thing. And the setting has no guns, so Gunslinger (except Bolt Ace) was banned (I would probably ban Gunslinger in any serious game I ran, anyway, because it's just a doofy concept for high fantasy).

[noce]

Oh, sorry, brevity was clearly not the essence of clarity there. Yes, that can make sense. But not being bothered to learn something, and so, instead, labeling it as the spawn of evil? That doesn't sound like the stuff good GMs are made of. That sounds like the stuff... well, the stuff humanity is made of, actually.

Truly horrifying.

I (the one which plays that game) kindly disagree.
We already played a game with that DM and I can assure you I can not even imagine a DM better than he is. For the sake of completeness, in that game every 3.5 book was allowed.

The game we play now is the prequel, with a young society created by the only god of the setting. He has 2 sons and 3 daughters, one of whom is really evil.

The society is brutish, with slavery and injustice everywhere. Orcs, goblins, half orcs, warlocks, and users of strange magics are said to be what witches were in middle age, thus killed on sight. This really makes sense in this world. This doesn't mean they are, but they're believed to be.

The fact that the DM doesn't know how to properly build a shadowcaster is irrelevant. He likes warlocks but banned them as well.

[Elkad]

Oh, sorry, brevity was clearly not the essence of clarity there. Yes, that can make sense. But not being bothered to learn something, and so, instead, labeling it as the spawn of evil? That doesn't sound like the stuff good GMs are made of. That sounds like the stuff... well, the stuff humanity is made of, actually.

Truly horrifying.

Except it reads like it's just a soft-ban. So he came up with a good backstory to explain it.

Character creation rules for my current table (all pretty low-op players) say "Things banned because they make my head hurt. Magic of Incarnum, Truenamers, and some other subsystems you've probably never heard of".
Since then I've played an Incarnate myself at somebody else's table and gained a better understanding, so I've lifted the ban on that subsystem specifically.

[Karl Aegis]

Classes that are so poorly edited that trying to figure out what they actually do takes more effort than it's worth. You say Text Trumps Table, I say find another class.

[ericgrau]

My group often bans monk for being OP. Yeah, I know. Personally I'm running 5e and almost ran 3.5e. I didn't ban any base classes in my 3.5e house rules but I did say that any power creep would get a minor nerf on a case by case basis. I suppose it would have taken the form of taking away minor class features, maybe bumping some maneuvers up 1 "spell" level if someone wanted ToB. Likewise some actual magic splatbook spells would go up 1 level and in very rare cases banned.

I did have a ban on all prestige classes but I offered the option of taking the same abilities as feats. The idea being that they're almost always power creep and this was an easier method than nerfing them all. Plus they're messy in builds. For multiclass casting I had another houserule to make it run smoothly without prestiges.

I had 2 pages of house rules in total including details about the world, how to roll ability scores, backstory instructions and other basics. The idea was to let people do what they want and play it by ear for any broken combo tricks that might arise. Usually people play nice and that never happens anyway; hence it would be a waste of time to enumerate them ahead of time. All these case-by-case nerfs were to be minor and not to try to take away fun options, but rather to keep everything viable alongside each other and not only the top tricks.

I did actually have a few sentences to deal with paladins and my groups' disdain for them. It included: "Paladins are not required to be jerks" and an explanation on why falling would be highly unlikely. I retained that section for my 5e houserules. In 5e I still don't know the rules very well so I don't even nerf case by case. I do glance at things briefly but until I know the system better so far nothing seems to be worth the trouble of disallowing.

[heavyfuel]

Outside of a few very powerful PrCs, I don't ban the classes, I ban the sub-systems I haven't had the time to properly read.

For the longest time I didn't allow Psionics, ToB, or MoI. Not because they were overpowered or anything, but because I hadn't read how these systems worked. Now they are all fair game at the table.

On the same note, I don't allow anything from Tome of Magic because I never gave that book a proper read.

What I do ban are specific spells and feats.

[Deophaun]

Class is banned for my group. We don't trust people who don't belch and scratch themselves.

[Eldonauran]

My table plays Pathfinder and I don’t ban anything that is 1st party material (alternate rules, like from Unchained, are case by case). I simply have one rule about what the players use: You are not unique snowflakes or the first to discover something. This pretty much means that whatever they want to use can, and will, be used against them. My group is intelligent enough not to inflict themselves with hard-mode.

[Nifft]

I try to figure out a palette of monsters & classes that make sense for the campaign.

I ban everything and then white-list specific things which fit.

(Usually a lot of stuff will fit.)

[Malroth]

I bump warblade/crusader/swordsage into prestigue classes requiring martial study and bab4 because they're too front loaded for lv 1

[Calthropstu]

Yes. I ban algebra, trig, bio chem and American history at my table. My game isn't the place for that.

[BWR]

I ban some classes if they don't fit the game (no Wizards of High Sorcery in Mystara) or if the basic concept is stupid (Ur-priest, Malconvoker). More often I'll ban subsystems and any class that may follow (ToB/PoW, for instance). Many are restricted in some way (PF Magus is elf only in my Mystara campaign because of the BECMI elf race/class), for instance just about any PrC that has a fluff attachment will require the PC to fulfill said requirement and play an important part of the character's life.
Some stuff gets banned simply to avoid bloat.

[Geddy2112]

The closest thing I had to banning classes was running a setting without guns in pathfinder, which effectively banned gunslinger unless you wanted to use the crossbow maven archetype.

I have also banned third party material and homebrew, but I don't count that as the same thing.

[Doctor Awkward]

Generally no.
I allow pretty much all first-party material in 3.5 games I run, and I'll white-list most Dragon Magazine material upon request.

If I am doing a published adventure, every once in a while I ban specific things based on the nature of the material.
For instance, when I ran the Red Hand of Doom for my party, I specifically banned the Mindsight feat and the Dread Necromancer class.

[Necroticplague]

In the most recent Pathfinder game I ran in meatspace, I banned Summoner, because the group is too large and people with minions taking effectively multiple turns was slowing the game down (and the minionless Summoner archetype is notoriously OP).

Wait, there's a minionless summoner? Mind passing a name?Sound like an interesting concept.

[Calthropstu]

Wait, there's a minionless summoner? Mind passing a name?Sound like an interesting concept.

Yes, you sacrifice your eidolon to basically get the ability "walking horde." The archetype was banned in pfs play and it's also banned at most tables.
Everyone hates on it. User discretion is advised.

[thompur]

Yes, you sacrifice your eidolon to basically get the ability "walking horde." The archetype was banned in pfs play and it's also banned at most tables.
Everyone hates on it. User discretion is advised.

I assumed he meant the Synthesist summoner, which basically "wears" his eidolon.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nothing third party, including dragon mag and compendium and the StP erudite variant but that's pretty much it. I'm even willing to bend on the dragon content on a case-by-case basis. I'm kind of a kitchen-sink DM though. :smalltongue:

[Rynjin]

I assumed he meant the Synthesist summoner, which basically "wears" his eidolon.

Synthesist is banned because people freak out over the Summoner turning itself in Barbarian+, not realizing it's basically a downgrade to core Summoner.

Master Summoner is the real OP-ness.

[Goaty14]

I ban class in my games. Anybody with the nerve to show up wearing a monocle and acting British is hereafter banished back to the gentleman's club that they came from.

[ryu]

I ban class in my games. Anybody with the nerve to show up wearing a monocle and acting British is hereafter banished back to the gentleman's club that they came from.

What if I show up wearing two monocles, four stacked top-hats of various sizes, a suit that changes between multiple neon shades based on the angle it's viewed from, white gloves, and a mahogany walking cane in each hand?

[Akto]

What if I show up wearing two monocles, four stacked top-hats of various sizes, a suit that changes between multiple neon shades based on the angle it's viewed from, white gloves, and a mahogany walking cane in each hand?

Then you would be asked to stop playing Team Fortress 2 and start finding your Dice already :p

[ryu]

Then you would be asked to stop playing Team Fortress 2 and start finding your Dice already :p

I can do both. Also it's only team fortress 2 if I'm specifically wearing all blue or red with other colors being monochrome with maybe a little brown.

[Malimar]

I assumed he meant the Synthesist summoner, which basically "wears" his eidolon.
Yes, that's the one. The name had slipped my mind.

[Ualaa]

We're playing Pathfinder.
Nothing is banned per se.

But none of the martial characters have been anything but Path of War & Path of War: Expanded, and all of the casters are Spheres of Power.

There are the occasional Psionic characters, but they're not common.

I believe one of the guys made a Bloodrager several characters ago.
It was probably the first character not from Path of War/Spheres of Power/Ultimate Psionics in about 50 of so characters...
But they're all on the table, if people want to use them.

[mabriss lethe]

Depends on the group I'm DMing for. In one group, it's all gloves are off, and anything 1st party goes. If it's an especially broken class (either the over powered variety, or the dysfunctional) I'll offer suggestions such as "we might need to have a gentleman's agreement about abusing this class" or "please don't play the truenamer. I guarantee you, you won't have a good time playing one"

The other group I DM for is mostly newer players, so I actually keep the ban lists pretty tight, just to keep them from becoming overwhelmed with too many options. Even then, if the player comes up with an idea that just can't be expressed within the whitelist of sources, I'll approve things case by case. As they get more comfortable with the core mechanics of the game, I also open up additional sources on demand.

[Mike Miller]

Class is banned for my group. We don't trust people who don't belch and scratch themselves.

You won this thread.

Also, I just ban 3rd party content. Otherwise I will learn the subsystem if a player knows it but I don't. I had one person use MoI so I had to learn it. I find the less common classes make the PCs more unique and interesting.

[Coventry]

I ban the Frenzied Berserker class in 3.5, and anything else that forces players into fighting each other.

It is just a personal hang-up: PvP ruins my enjoyment of the game so much that I choose to not play instead of trying to referee it. If my players really want PvP, I will not mind if they start their own game without me.

Bob Newhart did the same thing with one of his TV shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Newhart#The_Bob_Newhart_Show) - there was simply a space he was unwilling to head off to.

[martixy]

Nooope. I use the "please don't break my game" method of content control.

[Wildspell]

I have banned Gunslingers and Swashbucklers. And I won't allow any class that is based on any variant of "hero points" or "action points" style of mechanics. In the first place, those things are a black hole to adjudicate. Secondly, the reward for doing something difficult should be inherent in the result (with a more traditional bonus to X.P. thrown in for the really exceptional act).

[Ignimortis]

Not usually, but I started my last campaign with Wizards banned at chargen. Otherwise, everything's fair game.

[lord_khaine]

I ban the Frenzied Berserker class in 3.5, and anything else that forces players into fighting each other.

Its the only think i persistently ban. Namely because its an awfully designed class that makes the rest of the party pay for the power it gets.

[RoboEmperor]

Its the only think i persistently ban. Namely because its an awfully designed class that makes the rest of the party pay for the power it gets.

IIRC the correct way to play FB is to spend every morning going off somewhere and using all your rages on nothing because you're grabbing the PrC for the power attack and nothing else, or something like that.

[Doctor Awkward]

IIRC the correct way to play FB is to spend every morning going off somewhere and using all your rages on nothing because you're grabbing the PrC for the power attack and nothing else, or something like that.

The +10 untyped bonus to Strength and not be able to be killed are also nice.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I ban the Frenzied Berserker class in 3.5, and anything else that forces players into fighting each other.

It is just a personal hang-up: PvP ruins my enjoyment of the game so much that I choose to not play instead of trying to referee it. If my players really want PvP, I will not mind if they start their own game without me.

Bob Newhart did the same thing with one of his TV shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Newhart#The_Bob_Newhart_Show) - there was simply a space he was unwilling to head off to.


Its the only think i persistently ban. Namely because its an awfully designed class that makes the rest of the party pay for the power it gets.

The funny thing is that I have a FB in my party.
The party was the one to suggest the PrC to the player.

I think that Classes and PrCs like this are only allowed if all yhe party want them.

[Luccan]

I don´t ban classes per se, I ban entire sub-systems that I don't want to deal with, for example Psi.

I do something similar. Banning specific classes is for setting flavor or to set a specific power curve.

[137beth]

No, I do not ban any classes.

[Troacctid]

There was a point where I banned Swashbuckler because I just gave up on trying to balance it.

[NomGarret]

I will often ban the core classes. I bought all these books and learned all these subsystems and my players keep wanting to be boring and play clerics and rogues. :shrug:

[heavyfuel]

I will often ban the core classes. I bought all these books and learned all these subsystems and my players keep wanting to be boring and play clerics and rogues. :shrug:

I was actually thinking of doing just that for the next game.

How did this affect gameplay, if at all?

[Nifft]

I was actually thinking of doing just that for the next game.

How did this affect gameplay, if at all?

Depends what books your players own and/or favor.

If you go from Cleric & Rogue -to-> Crusader & Beguiler? That works fine.

If you go from Cleric & Rogue -to-> Divine Mind & Spellthief? That might not work as well.

[NomGarret]

I was actually thinking of doing just that for the next game.

How did this affect gameplay, if at all?

Pretty well, honestly. The games fell apart for other, normal reasons, but the gameplay worked out well. It gave people a push to try different tactics.

[skunk3]

There was a point where I banned Swashbuckler because I just gave up on trying to balance it.

What was your problem(s) with that class?

[Arcanist]

I will often ban the core classes. I bought all these books and learned all these subsystems and my players keep wanting to be boring and play clerics and rogues. :shrug:

Rogue and Cleric are good classes. Besides, it's fun to play the basic stuff sometimes. Sure you can go Artificer, but sometimes you just want the quick pleasure of introducing everybody to your friends Rolland Initiative, and his four friends, Sneak Attack, Sneak Attack, Sneak Attack, and Sneak Attack :haley:

[Venger]

What was your problem(s) with that class?

Probably the same reason people ban monk or paladin: they're attractive and flavorful-looking trap options for new players who don't understand how terrible the class is, and like those, it's quite difficult to bring up to basic competency due to its deep structural flaws.

[Durzan]

I basically ban most classes in books and replace them with homebrew of my own base and prestige classes. But thats because I find it easier to make my own classes than to try to "fix" classes already established in core or splat-books.

I don't need 12 different core classes, when 6 or 8 custom made classes fill their roles better, and fit the setting far better than trying to shoehorn vanilla crap in.

[Luccan]

What was your problem(s) with that class?

Can't speak for Troacctid, but it isn't exactly well made. One of its main class features is not having as a bad a Reflex save as a Fighter. They give them a small bonus to the save rather than giving them a good Reflex save and actual class abilities. Almost everything decent it has doesn't start until level 3 and most of its class features should be replaced by far superior ACFs if given the opportunity (and even the ACFs aren't that great and two thirds of them pigeonhole you into specific builds). It could be fun for E6, but I'd probably play the CW Samurai for 20 levels before trying it with a Swashbuckler. At least they get active class abilities before level 11.

[Bullet06320]

the only thing that's perma banned at my table is the Hypermitotic template from the Book of Templates https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11622.phtml
it gives me a headache just thinking about it, especially when the player that asked about it was giggling in a very evil manner, lol

everything else is pretty much fair game, altho there have been a few campaign dependent specifics.
we once did a campaign starting all the characters started out playing one the npc classes from Darkness and Dread https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5082
or another where we started with D20 Modern classes, then went world hopping sliders style and ended up trapped in the Realms

[frogglesmash]

I'll mostly ban classes for thematic reasons i.e no ur priests in a setting without gods, or no psionic classes if psionics don't exist. On occasion a player and I will collectively agree that they shouldn't play certain classes because they won't be able to stop themselves from abusing them, and breaking the game.

[Calthropstu]

Probably the same reason people ban monk or paladin: they're attractive and flavorful-looking trap options for new players who don't understand how terrible the class is, and like those, it's quite difficult to bring up to basic competency due to its deep structural flaws.

Paladins are excellent options, especially at low levels. Having a paladin with at will detect evil REALLY helps beginning parties. They are great tanks, and if you use the pf paladin smiting, their smite will quickly drop just about anything.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I try to have players tell me their character concept before the game, and veto anything I think is disruptive or doesn't fit the campaign. Although I might start instituting a diversity clause; my players showing up to my game (set in an empire that hold deities in disdain, and have their own semi-godless faith) with three paladins, two alchemists, and a monk. In a game where I encouraged DSP material. I hate my group sometimes.

[Venger]

Paladins are excellent options, especially at low levels. Having a paladin with at will detect evil REALLY helps beginning parties. They are great tanks, and if you use the pf paladin smiting, their smite will quickly drop just about anything.

Fair enough. Not everyone starts their game at low levels though, and the class ages fairly fast. By around 9-12, they have a hard time keeping up.

[noce]

Having a paladin with at will detect evil REALLY helps beginning parties.

This is the worst.
It doesn't encourage roleplay but streamlines behaviours and encourages metagame.

A person trying to make a honest deal with you: is he evil? You do not accept, but why not? The deal is good for you, and that person didn't make anything to you or anyone else.

At the same time, a person doesn't ping evilness so you drop your defenses, and he just takes advantage of your dumbness.

Really, give a beginner an evil detector and he will behave in the dumbest kill/help binary way.

[Troacctid]

What was your problem(s) with that class?
It's 90% dead levels. I don't even know where to start to fix it.

[BowStreetRunner]

It's 90% dead levels. I don't even know where to start to fix it.
Just give Swashbuckler the maneuvers Known/Readied/Stances and recovery method of a Warblade, but with Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and White Raven disciplines.

[Malimar]

Pish posh, the only problem with Swashbuckler is that they're not proficient with bucklers. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE NAME, CONSARNIT.

[noce]

Pish posh, the only problem with Swashbuckler is that they're not proficient with bucklers. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE NAME, CONSARNIT.

They're not procifient with swashes, either.

[Rynjin]

Paladins are excellent options, especially at low levels. Having a paladin with at will detect evil REALLY helps beginning parties. They are great tanks, and if you use the pf paladin smiting, their smite will quickly drop just about anything.

Detect Evil is almost worthless at low levels. The only things that will ping are Clerics of Evil deities (even non-Evil ones, making this of dubious usefulness) and Outsiders and Undead.

[Drakevarg]

I ban either for setting flavor or because I simply don't like the class. CWar Samurai, for example, is banned because it's a garbage class that is 95% just a poorly-built Fighter. On the other extreme all magic users are sort-of-banned because the setting I run makes magic inherently foreign to mortals - that is, the power is never "theirs" and needs to be borrowed from some other entity. So you can never start play with magic, you need to obtain it through a storyline somehow and even then it's more likely to be limited to a template or special ability than an actual full-on class. And of course there's my blanket ban on any material I don't have access to a physical copy of. So ToB is still not allowed because I don't own it.

[Troacctid]

Just give Swashbuckler the maneuvers Known/Readied/Stances and recovery method of a Warblade, but with Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and White Raven disciplines.
I don't think those disciplines capture the feel of a Swashbuckler very well.

[BowStreetRunner]

I don't think those disciplines capture the feel of a Swashbuckler very well.
It's more a matter that the remaining disciplines capture the feel of a Swashbuckler even less.

[Troacctid]

It's more a matter that the remaining disciplines capture the feel of a Swashbuckler even less.
Which should tell you that grafting maneuvers onto the class is not a good fix.

[Elkad]

I'm in a roll20 game with a very tight class/race list. None of which are core (including races). Or T1.

Warmage, Ardent, Incarnate, Beguiler, ToB trio, DFA, Scout, Psiwar (ok, sorta-core). Maybe another 1 or 2 I forget.

It works. I understand the DMs goal of keeping us around T3/4, but the restriction still chafes a little.

[Rynjin]

Which should tell you that grafting maneuvers onto the class is not a good fix.

The pathfinder Swashbuckler (which is also hot garbage) meshes well with certain Path of War (Pathfinder's version of ToB) Disciplines quite nicely, at least.

Mithral Current (an iaijutsu based Discipline), Tempest Gale (a ranged Discipline compatible with thrown weapons focused on ranged Combat Maneuvers, particularly Trip and Disarm), Iron Tortoise (actually block and counterattack with your buckler!), Scarlet Throne (a dueling stance based Discipline; most Strikes only function if you're wielding a single one-handed weapon and have the other hand free), and Shattered Mirror (a tricksy "use your opponent's strength against them" magical Discipline) would make quite a fine Discipline list for Swashbuckler to have, with Cha as their Initiation modifier and Stalker progression (slightly faster than the other full BaB Initiators, since Swash class features suck so much harder than a Warlor, Warder, or Zealot).

[Malimar]

Detect Evil is almost worthless at low levels. The only things that will ping are Clerics of Evil deities (even non-Evil ones, making this of dubious usefulness) and Outsiders and Undead.
Only in Pathfinder. In 3.5, all evil creatures ping at least Faint evil.

In Pathfinder, Paladin got other upgrades that make up for the nerf to detect evil.

[Rynjin]

I assumed we were discussing PF, since they mentioned PF smiting. If not, my bad. =)

[Nifft]

It would be cool if there were Swashbuckler-themed maneuvers.

I'd use them for Thief-Acrobat types.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I assumed we were discussing PF, since they mentioned PF smiting. If not, my bad. =)

You should never assume something like that.

The only time it is ok to assume is when the thread is labeled as 3.5e or PF.

In this thread the system is erelevant because I only what to know what other do in their games when it come to classes even when I run a 3.5e game.

[Doctor Awkward]

It would be cool if there were Swashbuckler-themed maneuvers.

I'd use them for Thief-Acrobat types.

You mean in the Tome of Battle sense?

It's relatively simple to just imagine a lot of the Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw maneuvers to be swash-buckle themed.

But outside of that, I agree that there is a low amount of support for the Errol Flynn duelist character archetype.

[Malimar]

They're not procifient with swashes, either.
I have been told that "swash" just means "sword". Wikipedia now tells me it means "to swagger with a drawn sword". So I suppose the question is: are swashbucklers proficient with swag?

[Zombulian]

I will often ban the core classes. I bought all these books and learned all these subsystems and my players keep wanting to be boring and play clerics and rogues. :shrug:

Maybe I should do this.
I've owned Heroes of Horror for 8-odd years and I haven't seen ONE Dread Necromancer or Archivist. Not one!

[ZamielVanWeber]

With the exception of domain wizard my bans are generally fluid. I ban powerful things unless they are used in not powerful ways, since powerful options generally have the ability to help protect a player from the sometimes extreme downsides of fun and flavorful, but suboptimal, choices.

[the_david]

I have been told that "swash" just means "sword". Wikipedia now tells me it means "to swagger with a drawn sword". So I suppose the question is: are swashbucklers proficient with swag?
Nope. The term swashbuckler refers to the swashing sound a buckler makes. Or so I've been told.

Edit: Incidently, you don't need to be proficient with a buckler if you've got a masterwork buckler. Masterwork bucklers don't have a penalty, so not being proficient with them doesn't have any negative effect on your attack bonus.

Oh right, banned classes. I'm starting Rise of the Runelords AE for my group soon and I did mention that some classes would be better choices, mostly based on loot. (Book casters are great choices, I'm not going to adapt the campaign to fit gunslingers. Those kind of hints) I also told the group that I'd like to keep the number of pets to a minimum. It's likely that we'll still end up with a compsognathus familiar and some kind of animal companion. (At one point we had an eidolon, an animal companion, an imp familiar, a spheres of power companion and a cohort in a group of 4 players. I don't like to repeat that experience.)

[Cosi]

I will often ban the core classes. I bought all these books and learned all these subsystems and my players keep wanting to be boring and play clerics and rogues. :shrug:

Oh my god! People are playing the characters they want! This is the end of the world!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Only in Pathfinder. In 3.5, all evil creatures ping at least Faint evil.

In Pathfinder, Paladin got other upgrades that make up for the nerf to detect evil.

Given that a third of humans and less substantial but certainly not negligible portions of most of the other PC suitable races ping because of that, the smite-on-site behavior people see never did make any sense to me.

I found a way to get it across in the RP though. Any paladin that's part of a religious order must spend one entire day walking around town with their detect evil constantly on and to give a full report of what they've seen at the end of the day. A higher ranking member of the order then explains why what they've seen is the very reason you can't just go around smiting everything that lights up. Most such people don't deserve a smiting and even if they did the order would be so quickly and completely turned against and overwhelmed by sheer numbers that it would have to either disband or become conquering tyrants; either becoming unable to perform their duty or becoming what they've sworn to defend against.

During this day of observation they are forbidden from engaging in combat on pain of being expelled from the order. Egregious violations of this duty risk excommunication from the church. This practice is universally adopted across all orders that sponsor paladins in my game world because it helps to weed out the over-zealous and to keep an eye out for evil going on the rise.

Of course, those this practice sees ejected from their orders or even excommunicated don't necessarily fall as paladins so splinter groups of zealots do exist and sometimes corruption creeps into the most well intended organizations so it's not as though there's no room for conflict around such things.

Just thought I'd share. Feel free to crib for your own games if you like it. :smallbiggrin:

[Nifft]

Given that a third of humans and less substantial but certainly not negligible portions of most of the other PC suitable races ping because of that, the smite-on-site behavior people see never did make any sense to me. So you take them off-site for smiting?


I found a way to get it across in the RP though. Any paladin that's part of a religious order must spend one entire day walking around town with their detect evil constantly on and to give a full report of what they've seen at the end of the day. A higher ranking member of the order then explains why what they've seen is the very reason you can't just go around smiting everything that lights up. Most such people don't deserve a smiting and even if they did the order would be so quickly and completely turned against and overwhelmed by sheer numbers that it would have to either disband or become conquering tyrants; either becoming unable to perform their duty or becoming what they've sworn to defend against.

During this day of observation they are forbidden from engaging in combat on pain of being expelled from the order. Egregious violations of this duty risk excommunication from the church. This practice is universally adopted across all orders that sponsor paladins in my game world because it helps to weed out the over-zealous and to keep an eye out for evil going on the rise.

Of course, those this practice sees ejected from their orders or even excommunicated don't necessarily fall as paladins so splinter groups of zealots do exist and sometimes corruption creeps into the most well intended organizations so it's not as though there's no room for conflict around such things.

Just thought I'd share. Feel free to crib for your own games if you like it. :smallbiggrin:

That's really cool.

I guess that's also a good reason why Paladins are cloistered for their early years of training -- they're not sure when your Sight will kick in, so not seeing anyone evil until your Day of Smitelessness might be pretty important.

[Zombulian]

*reasonable Paladin Order stuff*

Well I'll be. That's a pretty good route.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That's really cool.

I guess that's also a good reason why Paladins are cloistered for their early years of training -- they're not sure when your Sight will kick in, so not seeing anyone evil until your Day of Smitelessness might be pretty important.
Best house rule I ran into was that paladins get the ability to touch someone and see their greatest sin. My character used it a lot since he was a near pacifist and it let him dodge a lot of tricky situations.

[Venger]

sounds like a great tool to facilitate roleplay. was it at-will like detect x?

[Arcanist]

[snip]

This is Kelbs idea.
This is Kelbs idea.
...
This is my idea now :smallamused:

[NomGarret]

Oh my god! People are playing the characters they want! This is the end of the world!

Well, yeah. One of those actually was an end of the world game. Technically a beginning of the world game. That still counts as an end, right?

[upho]

I generally don't have any blanket bans on anything, including classes, even 3PP and homebrew ones. Instead, I usually simply list the sources of options available as written with any related houserules, and judge requests for anything outside those sources on a case-by-case basis. However, I usually also give recommendations and suggestions on suitable - and highly unsuitable - classes/archetypes and try to clearly define the expected power level each PC should roughly have at certain levels, making it easier for the players to keep the "gentlemen's agreement" they've discussed and decided on before the game starts.

I can understand why many GM's might find this method too demanding, but I definitely recommend all GM's to at least try doing as much of it as they're able to. It really makes for a significantly better and more fun game IME.

As a sidenote, the most significant houserule change to classes is typically that full casting progression is slowed down, replaced with PrC's tailored according to the specifics of the story, setting and the wishes of the PC and player in question. And of course, usually a lot of class related fluff and minor related mechanics is changed more or less radically to better suit the setting and the campaign. For example, most often alignment restrictions and setting-specific stuff are removed or altered, so usually pallys don't necessarily need to be LG, barbs don't need to be non-L, and monks don't need to be L.

My current PF game has PC's of a power level perhaps best described as "powerful T3", and allows everything designed for PF published by Paizo and Dreamscarred Press (Path of War (ToB but more and better), Akashic Mysteries (MoI but better) and Psionics (also more and better than WotC's 3.5 material)). The game so far includes two homebrew PrCs, a homebrew archetype and a few minor class related options from 3.5.

[Corsair14]

I quite liberally ban classes depending on the campaign world. Monks are a usual victim of the ban hammer as I have a hard time including them in the game outside of an Oriental Adventures style campaign. Currently working on a fantasy Norse campaign where only non arcane classes of fighters and rogues, druids and clerics, both of which have to venerate a god, non-magic rangers and humans and variant humans with a limited starting selection of feats are allowed. When I run Dragonlance, Draconians replace dragonborn. I ran a Crusades era melding into Ravenloft game and only humans and non-magic classes were allowed initially, I did allow clerics as being extremely blessed by God and the Church to perform miracles of healing. I also do not allow spontaneous multi-classing and force PCs to find a higher level trainer and pay for the services.

[137beth]

Depends what books your players own and/or favor.

If you go from Cleric & Rogue -to-> Crusader & Beguiler? That works fine.

If you go from Cleric & Rogue -to-> Divine Mind & Spellthief? That might not work as well.

I found it more interesting to ban the core spells rather than the core classes. It gets rid of a lot of the most powerful mainstays, and you get to use lesser-known spells in the splat books.

However, the fixed-list casters tend to suffer.

[Calthropstu]

I found it more interesting to ban the core spells rather than the core classes. It gets rid of a lot of the most powerful mainstays, and you get to use lesser-known spells in the splat books.

However, the fixed-list casters tend to suffer.

Right, because having to go out and buy (or otherwise acquire) splatbooks in order to use my class sounds like a great idea.

[NomGarret]

It’s safe to say this should only be used at tables that already have extensive libraries. If I’m setting this as a DM, I’ll loan you my Complete Arcane.

[Nifft]

I found it more interesting to ban the core spells rather than the core classes. It gets rid of a lot of the most powerful mainstays, and you get to use lesser-known spells in the splat books.

However, the fixed-list casters tend to suffer.

Non-casters also suffer.

Stoneskin is core. It's a long-term buff that's great on a character who expects to be surprised, like the party's scouter. Heart of Stone is a self-only non-Core buff which can replicate Stoneskin for less GP, but it's self-only.

Polymorph is core. Draconic Polymorph is non-core (and self-only).

The tactics & arsenal of a selfish T1 caster are mostly intact under your rules.

It's just the party-friendly buff-caster who's been gutted.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Right, because having to go out and buy (or otherwise acquire) splatbooks in order to use my class sounds like a great idea.

FIFY. The book in question being the spell compendium.

Seriously though. The massive variety of supplemental rules is one of the draws of 3e over other games and SpC is right up there with the magic item compendium and complete series as top picks for "first new splat."

[HouseRules]

Technically, you cannot ban Prestige Classes or Variant Rules. You could opt-in or not opt-in.

Ban a class? No, but I've experience a Cleric 5 giving TPK to my party of multiple Rogue 5 // Bears.
Those channel energy is as powerful as mass inflict moderate wounds (6th level spells).

[lylsyly]

Technically, you cannot ban Prestige Classes or Variant Rules. You could opt-in or not opt-in.

Do you have a source for this?

[HouseRules]

It is the DM's job to allow or not allow players to enter and take levels in Prestige Classes. However, it is Player's Choice to take Base Classes. It's more along the lines of RAI of the DMG and PHB.

[lylsyly]

So you are saying that as a DM I can't ban base classes?

[HouseRules]

DM cannot ban Prestige Classes, they may choose to not opt-in. By RAW Prestige Class needs to be opt-in, so they are House Rules. Allowing or not allowing Prestige Classes is House Rules by RAW.

DM may ban Base Classes if it makes sense in their campaign setting, but it is more along the lines of banning entire books (usually).

[Mike Miller]

DM cannot ban Prestige Classes, they may choose to not opt-in. By RAW Prestige Class needs to be opt-in, so they are House Rules. Allowing or not allowing Prestige Classes is House Rules by RAW.

DM may ban Base Classes if it makes sense in their campaign setting, but it is more along the lines of banning entire books (usually).

It is a game. The DM can change whatever he/she wants to. The group can play the game however they want. Don't make claims like the DM can't do something. You are simply wrong.

[lylsyly]

Ever hear of Rule 0?

[HouseRules]

Ever hear of Rule 0?

I think we are argument minor differences in the interpretation of Rule 0?

[Blue Jay]

DM cannot ban Prestige Classes, they may choose to not opt-in. By RAW Prestige Class needs to be opt-in, so they are House Rules. Allowing or not allowing Prestige Classes is House Rules by RAW.

I would argue that "ban" is acceptable and appropriate shorthand for "choose to preemptively and selectively opt out of." I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

[HouseRules]

I would argue that "ban" is acceptable and appropriate shorthand for "choose to preemptively and selectively opt out of." I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

Which is why I think we are argument minor differences in the interpretation of Rule 0.

But if you are to say that "ban" equals "opt-out", then Yes, DM can ban Prestige Classes.

I'm along the side that if RAW allows it, then ban is to removing something that RAW allows. However, there are vagueness on what RAW allows, since there are many things that DM needs to "opt-in" or "opt-out" and are not explicitly required so they are on the fine line of RAW yet House Rules.

[Malimar]

It is a game. The DM can change whatever he/she wants to. The group can play the game however they want. Don't make claims like the DM can't do something. You are simply wrong.
You have missed the point. HouseRules is making the (somewhat semantic) point is that "banning" prestige classes is like "banning" death from massive damage or flaws or gestalt. They're all optional variant rules, so the DM disallowing them isn't "banning", it's "not opting in". People just forget that the DMG lists PrCs as optional in this way.

[HouseRules]

Actually, the way I think about it, I do ban classes in my game.

When creating Gestalt Characters, I considered a pair of base classes to be a Gestalt Dual Base Class. However, switch one side is not possible. If one side is different, the pair is different, so it makes an entirely different class. This is a "Rule 0" argument on my version of Gestalt vs. most people's version of Gestalt.

Fighter and Paladin 1 / Fighter and Ranger 1 is not the same as Fighter 2 // Paladin 1 / Ranger 1. It's more along the lines of Fighter 1 / Fighter 1 // Paladin 1 / Ranger 1 since there are no sides. I make a big deal in the fact that there are no sides in Gestalt.

Every pair of Single Progression Prestige Class and a Base Class forms a Gestalt Dual Prestige Class, and every Dual Progression Prestige Class counts as a Gestalt Prestige Class on their own. However, most of those Dual Progression Prestige Class are weaker than the Base Class // Base Class so many would not bother with them.

For Gestalt Triple Base Class, any unique three base classes will form a unique class.
For Gestalt Triple Prestige Class, any unique combination of two base class and one Single Progression Prestige Class forms a unique class, and any unique combinations of one base class and one Dual Progression Prestige Class forms a unique class.

Why are they forming unique classes? The same argument that Paladin is unique from Ranger, and unique from Fighter! If someone wants to say that "sides" exist, then I would argue that Fighter, Paladin, and Rangers are the same Base Class (an old school argument).

[Eldonauran]

I’d just like to add that Prestige classing is something that the DM has to allow, it is not something players can automatically expect unless the DM says it is ok, unless you are using house rules. There is no “banning” of Prestige classes, merely the DM choosing to allowing access to them at all, and then which ones.

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.
No one is playing “wrong” by expecting certain things to be readily available for use. Anything out of the Core three books should be considered “extra” material just to avoid problems.

[HouseRules]

Yet the PHB2, DMG2, MM2, MM3, MM4, MM5 seems so much like sequels. They have similar titles with the Core Rule books.

Many novel readers have to select whether a sequel that has contradictory material to be canon or not.
Most readers try to accept everything from the original authors as canon, but when people point out these contradictions, it becomes a discussion.
It's called the Primary Source Rules in 3.X.

[Eldonauran]

Yes, that is a common problem, however in this particular issue... Unless anything outside of the DMG states that prestige class are readily available (ie, directly contradicts the text), I really don’t think there is a readily defensible argument to be had about this issue, aside from personal play style and preference, which is already accounted for by houserules.

[Ruethgar]

I only ban classes in games that I’m replacing the base classes with custom of my own. Some games I might make it harder to learn new classes, like casters are rare in a ‘magic is illegal’ game but you can find a trainer with a quest.

[Anachronity]

In my most recent campaign I banned Vancian magic in favor of Spheres of Power.

I'm really liking the results.