What's on your banned list?

[RNightstalker]

So what is banned at your table? Tired of persistent spell? What spell like Shivering Touch breaks your/the game? No more stockpiles of nightsticks fueling DMM?

[Crake]

The things I ban are on a per-campaign basis, depending on the theme I want to run, rather than the power level of said option. That said, I'm also rather conservative with my rulings, and don't believe that nightstick stacking is possible for example, so I wouldn't call it a ban really.

[Quertus]

1) any final build outside the table's balance range (individual components are never evaluated for balance in a vacuum).

2) temporary buffs. If you can't Persist it, don't slow the table down with it.

3) anything else you can't handle quickly (which, for some players, means "spellcasters", or even "anything more complicated than 'hit it with your single attack form' characters (yes, rage and power attack are too many options / too slow for this example)").

4) anything else the group wants to "fade to black" / breaks their versimilitude (drown healing, for example).

[Biggus]

Spells: (Greater) Consumptive Field, Wraithstrike, (Lesser/Greater) Celerity, Shivering Touch, Starmantle, Venomfire, Wings of Cover, Polymorph Any Object

Feats: Invisible Spell, Shock Trooper, Leadership (unless it's a very small party), Craft Contingent Spell, Fell Drain, Words of Creation, Initiate of Mystra

Presige Classes: Frenzied Berserker, Hulking Hurler, Planar Shepherd, Ur-Priest, Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant

There are lots of others which I've nerfed or otherwise changed, but those are the only ones I've banned completely.

[Max Caysey]

2) temporary buffs. If you can't Persist it, don't slow the table down with it..

So what you ban all buff spells with a duration, that can’t be persisted? 🧐

I don’t ban anything blanketly... it all depends on the game, the players and the specifics surrounding the campaign... usually I don’t ban anything at all...

[Falontani]

Spells: (Greater) Consumptive Field, (Lesser/Greater) Celerity, Starmantle, Venomfire

Feats: Invisible Spell, Leadership (unless it's a very small party), Initiate of Mystra

Presige Classes: Frenzied Berserker, Hulking Hurler, Planar Shepherd, Ur-Priest, Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant

Races: Dvati, Anthro Animals

Content: Dragon Magazine, 3rd party

Probably more stuff than that though. Like Power Point Regeneration, but not the different parts that go into Power Point Regeneration.

[ManicOppressive]

Besides some stuff that just doesn't fit my setting for flavor reason (Truenamer, which no one weeps for anyway, for instance) the only thing I've banned is Natural Spell. Which might be a controversial one, but honestly it's drastically reduced the animosity toward druid players at my table throughout my time DMing.

As a general rule I don't have a problem with optimization producing results, but Druid doesn't get to simultaneously have Planar Shepherd making its top end monstrous while also having Natural Spell and an animal companion (oh yeah I also removed the animal companion [but gave them a domain instead] and gave ranger the full sized one) making its low-end optimization just as dominant. Rather than take out the top-end option I actually find really fun (By all means, pick Dal'Quor. I dare you.) I opted to knock out some bottom-end and require some actual build intention to go nuts on a Druid.

Oh, and I guess Wish, but that's not exactly 'banned' just 'not available on standard lists and not going to be dispensed for free by anything you summon.'

I allow Leadership, and I've even added some extra feats to take to buff it further, because players at my table (myself included when I'm playing not DMing) absolutely go nuts designing fun followers and the result is literally hundreds of interesting minor NPCs floating around the setting. I definitely don't judge people for banning it though--I have the benefit here of a consistent years-long group of people who aren't out for top-op for top-op's sake.

Otherwise, I quite enjoy builds that stretch the edges of balance. One of my players is on an Escalation Mage/Shadowcraft Mage right now and I only even have SOME regrets.

[malloc]

The things I ban are on a per-campaign basis, depending on the theme I want to run, rather than the power level of said option. That said, I'm also rather conservative with my rulings, and don't believe that nightstick stacking is possible for example, so I wouldn't call it a ban really.

Mostly this. I have a few staples that I ban--Mage's Disjunction, and Leadership, for example. But mostly it's all open book. A few games ago, I soft-banned all arcane casting classes for plot reasons (players were part of the church, hunting "witches"). For my next game, I'm thinking of banning all full casters, and giving the game sort of an E6 feel, letting martials get deeper into their builds before casters start to break the game open. In my most recent game, it was just Mage's Disjunction and Leadership.

Mage's Disjunction is off the table because breaking legendary items doesn't benefit anyone, and players would be upset if I used it against them and broke all their nice toys. Leadership ban is for obvious reasons. Apart from that, I just make the blanket statement "infinite loops, or anything that smacks of bull****," which covers most T.O. tricks.

I like to let my players try out builds. I like to let them plan, then reap the benefits of what they think is strong. But I try to keep everyone roughly in line--if your character is absurdly powerful and wiping the floor with everything, and others are struggling to keep up, I'll let that player know that the kiddie gloves are off. If you take the time to go for a double-weapon lightning mace build, I want you to be able to do it. I want you to feel silly and powerful and reach the point where your build is fully operational. But I also want other people to feel strong, and if I have to spend 2x the time planning just to keep your character in check without making it feel like I'm picking on you, I'm going to start challenging you more and more, to see how far you can survive, so that other people, who are playing terrifying builds like "rogue 12" can feel cool as well, on their own merit (not because I fiat them into position).

I'm very up front with all my players about this, and they're very up front about their builds with me (often, they ask for help or advice). It lets us all come together and have a communally fun experience, explore the boundaries of what the system has to offer (or, what they understand the boundaries to be), and still make opportunity for people of different skill levels to feel like they're part of the team.

[RNightstalker]

and don't believe that nightstick stacking is possible for example, so I wouldn't call it a ban really.

Rereading the source has me agreeing with you.



1) any final build outside the table's balance range (individual components are never evaluated for balance in a vacuum).
2) temporary buffs. If you can't Persist it, don't slow the table down with it.
3) anything else you can't handle quickly (which, for some players, means "spellcasters", or even "anything more complicated than 'hit it with your single attack form' characters (yes, rage and power attack are too many options / too slow for this example)").


1 could be done at the right table with the right people...not everyone wants to play the hero.
2 & 3 I fully agree with...slowing the table down is a cardinal sin.


Spells: (Greater) Consumptive Field, Wraithstrike, (Lesser/Greater) Celerity, Shivering Touch, Starmantle, Venomfire, Wings of Cover, Polymorph Any Object

Feats: Invisible Spell, Shock Trooper, Leadership (unless it's a very small party), Craft Contingent Spell, Fell Drain, Words of Creation, Initiate of Mystra

Presige Classes: Frenzied Berserker, Hulking Hurler, Planar Shepherd, Ur-Priest

There are lots of others which I've nerfed or otherwise changed, but those are the only ones I've banned completely.

Would you mind explaining your thoughts behind (Greater) Consumptive Field, Venomfire, Wings of Cover, Polymorph Any Object, Craft Contingent Spell, Fell Drain, Initiate of Mystra, and the PrC's? I ask for your point of view, not to challenge or argue.



Presige Classes: Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant

Races: Dvati, Anthro Animals


Why these?



I allow Leadership, and I've even added some extra feats to take to buff it further, because players at my table (myself included when I'm playing not DMing) absolutely go nuts designing fun followers and the result is literally hundreds of interesting minor NPCs floating around the setting. I definitely don't judge people for banning it though--I have the benefit here of a consistent years-long group of people who aren't out for top-op for top-op's sake.

Otherwise, I quite enjoy builds that stretch the edges of balance. One of my players is on an Escalation Mage/Shadowcraft Mage right now and I only even have SOME regrets.

I kinda enjoy the same about leadership, but I haven't had the chance to do it in-game yet. I also like trying out builds that look like they'd be fun.



I like to let my players try out builds. I like to let them plan, then reap the benefits of what they think is strong. But I try to keep everyone roughly in line--if your character is absurdly powerful and wiping the floor with everything, and others are struggling to keep up, I'll let that player know that the kiddie gloves are off. If you take the time to go for a double-weapon lightning mace build, I want you to be able to do it. I want you to feel silly and powerful and reach the point where your build is fully operational. But I also want other people to feel strong, and if I have to spend 2x the time planning just to keep your character in check without making it feel like I'm picking on you, I'm going to start challenging you more and more, to see how far you can survive, so that other people, who are playing terrifying builds like "rogue 12" can feel cool as well, on their own merit (not because I fiat them into position).

I'm very up front with all my players about this, and they're very up front about their builds with me (often, they ask for help or advice). It lets us all come together and have a communally fun experience, explore the boundaries of what the system has to offer (or, what they understand the boundaries to be), and still make opportunity for people of different skill levels to feel like they're part of the team.

What? You guys try to have fun!? What a novel concept. Of course I have no trouble blatantly picking on a character that's getting out of hand...if they can handle it.

[calam]

I never had to ban overpowered things since the gentlemen's agreements work pretty well but I once had to ban someone from taking the CW samurai in a 3.5/PF game. It was an extended campaign and I knew the joke aspect wouldn't be worth it in the long run.

[Rynjin]

The only first party thing (I play PF, mind) I ban outright is Blood Money (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-money/).

I allow most 3PP material on request, so the only things on my hard blacklist are Godlings.

[newguydude1]

at my table? nothing.
he allows everything thats not dragon magazine, 2nd party, or 3rd party, or web content because he doesnt accept their authority or something iunno.
he is raw or die so all tricks are allowed

and if something is too powerful compared to the rest of the party we discuss additional restrictions in order to keep our shtick without being imbalanced.
and everyone plays in good faith so drown healing never comes up.

i use mirror mephtis and our additional restriction was only 1 simulacrum whose cr is equal or less than our party ecl. but talks have come up in removing the 1 simulacrum limit restrictions because the rest of our players got better at the game and im in the weaker half at the moment.

[Fizban]

From my main doc, everything from initial bans through character creation:
(italics and bullet points won't have transferred, so reduced legibility)

ACFs and "bans." No "ban" list is ever free from further additions as required, but these get the idea.

Complete Champion
-1st level pounce from Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian is banned, other spirit totems may be negotiable.
-Spontaneous Divination and Domain Granted Power for Wizards are banned.
-Travel Devotion gives you one move as a swift action, not ten of them.
-Ring of the Beast is banned.
Complete Mage
-Arcane Hunter is banned.
-Focused Specialist is banned.
-Arcane Fusion errata is ignored (you cannot metamagic spells within the fusion)
Dragon Magic
-Dragonscale Husk is a normal armor bonus, can be targeted as armor.
-Taking a Drakkensteed does not remove access to other mounts.
Drow of the Underdark
-Hit and Run Tactics Fighter is banned.
-Ring of Anticipation is banned.
-Shadow Cloak is banned.
Dungeonscape
-Dungeoncrasher is banned.
-Paladin's Spirit of Healing is equal to their Lay on Hands pool rather than double (since Lay on Hands has been upgraded)
-Penetrating Strike is banned.

Other
Whirling Frenzy is banned.
Improved Trip does not give you a free attack.
Knock-Down is banned.
Tripping now includes BAB on both sides of the check
Shocktrooper (heedless charge) provokes an AoO from target (compare Power Lunge feat).
Leap Attack applies only on the first attack.
Abrupt Jaunt is now Abrupt Blink (50% miss chance as Blink against one attack/effect, still huge)
Uncanny Forethought is banned.
Craven is banned.
Splitting is banned.
Valorous is a +3 enhancement that applies only on the first attack.
-Any other charge multipliers I haven't caught below also apply only on first attack.
Magebane is banned.
Wraithstrike is banned.
Heartseeker Amulet is banned.
Anklets of Translocation (and essentially all teleportation items less than 10,000gp) are banned.
Belt of Battle is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Massive initiative bonus items (say, anything higher than +2, no stacking) are banned.
Crafted Contingent Spells are banned.
Restful armor and Restful armor crystals are banned.
Animated shields are banned.
Bead of Karma is banned.
Metamagic Rods are on thin ice.
Sculpt Spell (clarification): must choose area mode on preparation.
Wand Chambers: banned.

Cloistered Cleric is banned.

Darkstalker: banned.

Hellfire Warlock's Hellfire takes a swift action.

Entangling Exhalation: banned. I do not care enough to want to use this myself, nor to fix it when its only use is turning simple at-will low damage effects into no-save AoE control effects.
-Exhaled Barrier could be re-worked into a proper metabreath feat. Exhaled Immunity is stupid and banned.

Healing Belts: banned. Yes, you heard me. They grievously violate all pricing guidelines, are so good that they effectively become mandatory for every character, displacing all other healing items, and push the "1 hour adventuring day" even harder.
-Cure potions have been reduced in price to match wand charges, to encourage use even at the lowest levels.

---
Negative hit points increased to -10-1/2 level? Or, is -10-full level so bad?


Spells
Alter Self uses 3.0 version (disguises w/poor quality wings/gills only, can alter clothing)
Assay Spell Resistance is reduced to +5, standard action cast.
Wraithstrike is banned
Conviction is banned.
Benediction is banned.
Divine Insight is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Glibness is reduced to +10 enhancement (and Bluff is not insane), could be competence instead if stacking remains a problem, or stripped all the way down to merely negating truth magic.
Inspirational Boost is 3rd level (but base Inspire Courage progression has increased)
Enhance Wild Shape can only grant extraordinary senses or boost an ability score.
Greater Blink is 7th level Sor/Wiz (6th for Bards)
Greater and Superior Resistance have 10 min/level durations.
Mass Resist Energy is 4th level.
Greater Mighty Wallop is banned.

Mage Armor and Shield are reduced to +3 each.
Enlarge and Reduce 3.0 versions are available (10%/caster level up to 50%, +1/-1 str at 20% and 40%), standard action cast, and at 30/50% they also give +1/-1 and then +2/-2 on weapon damage (could be restricted to creature-only, but leaving that alone for now).
-Enlarge Person is renamed Gigantize and is pushed back to 3rd level, does not stack with Enlarge.
-Reduce Person is renamed Shrinkify, otherwise remains unchanged, does not stack with Reduce.
Web lasts 1 round/level and once free only reduces speed by 1/2 (as creatures are still entangled within).
Glitterdust blinds for 1 round, dusting remains for 1 round/level.
Stinking Cloud only forces one save, lasts 1 round after leaving.
Entangle affects a 10' radius.
Greater versions of Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Entangle are available at 4th, 4th, 5th, and 3rd levels with their original effects.

These are banned, but for completeness I would make the following minimum changes:
-Wings of Cover is 4th level, and you lose your next turn.
-Lesser Celerity is 4th level and you lose your next turn.
-Celerity is 8th level and you lose your next turn.

Ray of Stupidity is banned.
Ray of Dizziness is banned.
Shivering Touch could maybe be fixed, but I'd rather just ban it.

A growing list of buffed spells in Spell Compendium shall be un-buffed.

Many spells which grant blindsense, blindsight, and burrow speeds are awaiting roundup for the chopping block. PCs are not meant to perfectly ignore stealth with ease any more than they are meant to have perfect stealth, nor has anything ever been written assuming they can just walk through earth. Some will remain, but only at 4th+ levels.

Blasting Spells: see Traditional Energy Spells below for changes to many popular (and unpopular) blasting spells, including the Orbs, Scorching Ray, Combust, Chain Lightning, and Freezing Sphere.
-Melf's Unicorn Arrow is banned.
-Ray of Frost, Acid Splash, and similar 0th level damage rays are 1d6.

Polymorph is not banned, but may also be restricted by HD of target, only allows the given creature types regardless of the target's type, forms may be vetoed individually at any time, and further restrictions may apply if needed (such as single-brained creatures being un-able to use multiple Hydra heads or Octopus limbs, disorientation penalties, lists of familiar forms, strength of new form limited to +X above original, etc.). Polymorphing is cool, but I will adjust or prohibt as needed to account for how monsters are not written for polymorph. If you just want a specific form, consider asking for a dedicated spell.
-No, the Pathfinder version is not the solution. A list of buffs and a disguise bonus is not polymorph. Polymorph turns you into something, and if that doesn't involve a massive replacement of stats, it's not polymorph.

Polymorph Any Object can be used only to duplicate the spells given in the PHB, as well as appropriate spells from other books such as fuse or transmute sand<->stone/glass and flesh<->ice. It can also instantaneously transmute objects as Fabricate, or temporarily turn an object or creature into an object within the parameters of Major Creation. If used to duplicate Polymorph, the duration increases to 1 hour/level. Spell might be renamed to Greater Polymorph.
-PAO (experimental): more powerful and instantaneous transformations such as lead into gold, turning an object into a creature, or changing a creature's race, might be possible with an xp cost. I'm thinking xp cost= gp cost of desired result as a safe minimum. This fixes a number of entries that seem to think the spell could already do this, and putting them here makes it more obvious that some thing are absolutely within range of wish and other non-epic (but still high level) magic.

Flesh to Stone (and similar): This family of spells might require some rewrites regarding the status of items worn and/or carried by the target. The classic petrification shtick of "incredibly lifelike statues," obviously has an expectation that the target's clothing and gear must transform with them to create the proper image. But 3.x relies heavily on the magic item system, where the PCs are expected to loot their foes' equipment. Thus, the PCs cannot actually use any petrify effects without causing an even worse version of the prisoner problem, needing to un-petrify and deal with the "defeated" foe in order to get the loot. This can be viewed as a "balancing" factor of such spells (and the freezing of gear an effective complication when it happens to PCs), but it simply clashes too much with gameflow, pacing, and the existence of flat-out kill spells at the same levels. Furthermore, well-known "exploits" found in the lack of real defintion or limitation on things like: petrifying someone, turning the statue to mud or dust, and purifying the mud/dust out of existence, potentially leaving them and everything they carried not-dead and not-destroyed but impossible to un-petrify, well that's the heck of a dumb loophole to have in the rules of the universe.
Potential fixes:
-Non-magical gear is always petrified, magical gear is not.
-Petrified items on a creature can be targeted and restored individually.
-The caster may choose to affect only the creature and not their gear, or everything.
-A petrified creature or item is never treated as stone for any other effects: even a stone to flesh spell only affects them because they are a petrified creature.
-Destroying or rendering incapable of de-petrification any of a creature's life-critical organs, a full cross-section of an item, or more than 50% of the original statue regardless of shaping, kills the creature or destroys the object. The soul departs, the magic of an item is lost, and effects which attempt to locate them work only as they would for a dead or destroyed target, because the target was in fact killed or destroyed, while petrified.

Planar Binding only allows you to bargain, bound creatures will never work for free. If a bargain is not made they may automatically return to their home plane once free of the binding regardless of effects or local conditions that would attempt to retain or compel them. If a bargain is made, the payment is bound to the agreement and returns to the creature's home plane with the same guarantee even if they are slain, or possibly immediately (at their option). Bargains for non-immediate or non-material rewards are enforced upon the caster directly- such as transporting the caster or their soul to a desired point on the creature's home plane, the transferal of magic or ability, etc. Payment may only be extracted in this way from the caster (and possibly children sired after the deal is made). Any equipment carried by the called creature may be designated "bound" (as DMG2) by the DM, making it useless to anyone but the called creature itself.
While you can only bargain, the spell remains risky because plenty of creatures would rather break out and do as they please anyway, as well as subverting your orders out of spite. While a "Planar Bargain" variant initially seems reasonable, the lack of risk and reliable bargaining is why Planar Ally has an xp cost in the first place (and the further deity restricted lists in the second place). No xp cost, no guarantees.
Defeating a creature you oringally called (or created) never earns you xp in any way, in case you had to ask.
The corpse of a called creature may be deemed unsuitable for other purposes. A core part of the calling descriptor's optics is that the body remains, the same as if they had planeshifted or travlled in some other way, but I could just as easily make a blanket ruling that elementals, outsiders, spirits, etc. slain on the material plane are always rendered useless no matter how they got there.

Planar Ally typically calls only a specific type of creature per spell depending on the caster's god (see Complete Divine), and casters whose gods aren't represented there or elsewhere can submit a list for DM approval. The DM may alter the default creatures to create unique individuals and/or substitute another creature if it seems appropriate, including instances where the caster has made an attempt to request a different creature by some means even if they don't have a specific name, or any other reason. As with Planar Binding, any payment offered is bound to the agreement and disappears even if the called creature is slain, and the creature's own equipment may not be transferable.

Animate Dead: is in line for nerf and/or split as soon as I decide what particular changes to use (or if a particular game will not need any changes).
-The main split is: the "3.5" versions at 3rd/4th level become Lesser, and use the 3.0 skeleton and zombie statistics and spell details, with Greater versions at 6th/7th for the 3.5 templates and spell details (IIRC, 3.5 massively increased HD cap- the overall gp cost may have gone up a bit though).
-The DM may make adjustments to the 3.0 statistics as neccesary, such as changing claws to hooves for a horse skeleton, allowing an alternate weapon such as a scorpion with a single more powerful stinger instead of claws, or altering movement modes. In rare cases this might include a direct upgrade such as an extra natural weapon, natural armor or statistic increase, or retained special ability, if and only if the DM feels they are neccesary to capture the feel of a high quality animated corpse, and do not create an overpowered result.
-An alternative might be restricing Animate Dead to targets of humanoid (two arms, legs, and head, not the creature type) design and explicitly removing weapon and armor proficiencies, or even the ability to use them at all, regardless of proficiency (no untrained weapons and strappping on armor just leaves the minion entangled and unable to act). The goal here is to force the templated creatures into end results more like the original expectations without divorcing the bloodthirsty pokemon trainer model completely. In the end it is still very highly dependent on what the DM uses, just from a smaller allowed pool with the worst offenders removed- and making the spell much more situational as it no longer works on huge swathes of monsters. I much prefer the consistency of the lesser/greater split.
-Another alternative could be creating a separate "control pool" system that runs through all classes, taking the place of any and all companion or minion (heck, maybe even summoning! And transforming!) limits. This would be a more ambitious overhaul project that while attractive, really isn't in my preferred style of individually quick fixes- but to truly balance minions, one would need to properly incorporate them at the ground level.
-Yet another alternative would be the abolishment of automatic control entirely, and directly prohibiting it: no creature created by ones own spells, features, etc., could ever be directly controlled by the creator. This forces the use of external means such as simple bargaining, blackmail, or a "sufficiently external" effect like a Leadership feat for recruitment. Or more involved methods, such as creating specific types of creatures that naturally do a thing you want them to do (undead that hate their former loved ones). Or incentivise villains to control someone and then turn them into a useful monster (since a monster created from "nothing" is useless), making "body horror" more interesting. Or most simply, incentivising pairs where each can create undead or other creatures, but they must be controlled by the partner. Under this ruling, the intent is obviously that PCs just don't create undead or other minions, unless there is a specific two-character combo that the DM has ok'd and the game is being planned for.

Command Undead: Duration reduced to 1 hour/level, as it is effectively "Charm Undead." Though because nobody complains about commandeering a pile of mindless undead abominations, no comparison is ever made to the fact that those using Charm Person in the same way would be gutted morally for enslaving a bunch of people (assuming a Charm was sufficient to do so).
-The spell should also give the +4 on saves if allies are already threatening or attacking the target, as charm effects, and should allow a save even for mindless undead. "Charm Persoon, but it works on undead" is a fully valid reason to push the spell to 2nd level on its own.
-As interesting as it might seem to make mindless undead so "vulnerable" to control, in practice this means that (one, poorly considered) spell screws over of a foundational type of foe for the DM. Command Undead is, surprise surprise, not a 3.0 PHB spell, and thus was no part of any of the main testing of such foes. It appeared in 3.0 Tome and Blood (alongside two necromancer classes)- so, any testing it did undergo was most likely with the far weaker and standardized skeletons and zombies of 3.0, and none of the additional and more powerful mindless undead added in later MMs or using the 3.5 templates.

Summon spells: the summon X lines may be cast as a standard action by anyone without any special features, in which case the creature(s) will appear immediately and be vulnerable to attack, but are unable to act until the start of your next turn. Rapid Summoning can be taken as a feat by anyone with an appropriate spell.
-This is mostly to reconcile the existence of such features and items, which are weirdly restricted but also widely assumed. Rather than try to make a dozen ACFs just to let characters who can can summon spells function at full speed, a basic tradeoff added to the spells themselves and a general feat seem much more effective.

Summon spell lists: I've rewritten the Summon Monster list based on the 3.0 and 3.5 lists and the changes made. Summon Nature's Ally will use the same list for natural creatures, but without templates, and needs to have some fey/plants/beasts added.

Gate: all creatures are unique creatures, boom done.

Sending: while the response must be made immediately, the recieved message lingers and is easily recalled for several minutes (so it can be commited to memory or written down). Because while it would make narrative sense in a book for something to hinge on failure to immediately write down a Sending, for practical use and actual play standards, it's better to be clear that the recipient has every opportunity to commit the information.



Disguise magic and skills (clarification): successful spot checks inform the user that the target is disguised, ex: "Something seems off, you think that X is under some sort of disguise."
-People who don't know anything about the sort of creature you are disguised as take a -10 penalty on their spot checks.

Line areas (clarification): as per Rules Compendium p135, when a line goes through an exact intersection, it hits all squares around that point. Thus a 5' wide line can always be aimed such that it will hit a given 10' square- just look at the diagram. Furthermore, because you can fire a line at any angle you want, you can always avoid hitting people at the "end" of a line, by angling it up or down so that it grounds out before or flies over a certain square.

Mirror Image (clarification): if you don't spread out your images, people can just swing blindly at you for 50% miss chance, no special rulings needed. If you do, they can make educated guesses about which one is you. A typical response would be to ready an action to attack whichever image launches a spell or projectile, or to attack whichever image is shown to be solid by an ally's action.

Dominate (clarification/houserule): subsequent saves do not currently end the spell, because that would make it impossible to dominate anyone with half a spine, making it rather useless and non-scary for long-term compulsion. However, anyone with half a spine has plenty of room to resist and subvert orders, and as a spell that requires a move action directive to change orders, you can be under only one set of orders at a time- so making that save to resist a subersive order means you're free. Until they issue a new order that sticks (and there are plenty that won't trigger that extra save). Intelligently worded orders require an intelligent being, while an emotionally agitated fool might give easily subverted orders.


PHB list of 1 round casting time spells: antilife shell, call lightning, changestaff, creeping doom, deep slumber, dominate animal/person, enlarge person, enthrall, fire storm, lesser geas, hypnotism, insect plague, modify memory (1 round+), mount, reduce person, sleep, statue, storm of vengeance, summon X, zone of silence. Similar spells may have their casting times adjusted at any time, and many items ought to as well.
-Also: baric Inspire Heroics. None of the other songs for whatever reason, just this one.

1 round casting time spells in items that don't inheret casting times: Mostly this is calling out Potions of Enlarge Person, normally a super cheap and super powerful buff. With the nerfs applied above, those versions of Enlarge/Reduce are fine acting at potion speed, but a potion of Gigantize should not take effect until the start of your next turn (still effectively granting you an un-interruptible casting benefit). Other items have often had their cost, trigger, and duration heavily modified, and so should be ruled individually.
-Items that produce sleep, or use prices based on sleep items, need to have this accounted for.

Phantom Steed: should probably be nerfed into submission. It grants scaling speed into flight which might have been less ridiculous when fly was 90' Good and flight items were wrong decimal point cheap, but not now.

Prestidigitation only manifests one effect. Yeah that's right, I'm even nerfing the Big P. The available effects of prestidigitation will also be limited by that of any dedicated cantrips added- in particular the cleaning effect needs to shrink, 'cause that's good enough to be its own spell, and eventually Big P will have its own entry with a fully revised list.

Move Silently: the penalty for moving faster than half your speed but not more than double your speed is -10. The bonus for remaining still, if needed, might be +10 (say for invisible creatures). Since you normally only roll for movement this isn't likely to come up, and could increase for holding your breath or not apply at all if you're moving too much while "standing still."

Characters with Item Creation feats may designate what type of materials they primarily use for item creation: gems, rare metals, rare plants, monster bits, art objects, etc. Generally this should not restrict any item creation in a city, but may allow you to create items in the field (such as a megadungeon) without a vendor to buy "crafting components" from, depending on what you've found, as well as defining a general theme for the visuals of anything you craft.

Magic Items
-My magic item bans and alterations notes are much older than the rest, so some entries will need to be revisited. But more importantly I only got through the DMG and about half of MiC, with a few extras.
-Which means I don't have explicit notes on Complete Mage and Complete Champion, but many of their items are most definitely getting whacked.
-A character may only wield as many weapons or "weapons" as they normally have hands. Some creatures have fewer slots for other magic items due to physiology, and the majority of humanoids only have two "slots" that can activate weapon properties.
Thus, holding a weapon in the same hand as a gauntlet suppresses any weapon properties of that gauntlet. Actively wielding armor or shield spikes or a hidden blade, will suppress a held weapon (while applying those of the new weapon), though if wielding two weapons you may choose which to retain and which to suppress (as you are now wielding a body blade and a weapon, one primary and one "off-hand").
-This still isn't enough to fix the ridiculous initiative bonus items mind you, those are still banned.
Magic Item Changes
-Sending Stones can use whispering candle, whispering sand, or forest voice as their prerequisite, and no longer function accross planes. They still use a single message and response of 25 words, because they're cheap- and while this does encourage obsessive word counting, it avoids the drawbacks of timing a normal conversation.
-Bags of Holding, Handy Haversacks, and similar use shrink item as their default prerequisite. Rupturing the bag causes all items to spill out, rather than being permanently lost in a method more powerful than anything short of a 9th level spell. Being in the "extradimensional space" of one of these or any similarly priced storage item, does not count as being on another plane, thereby not preventing various effects.
-Sizing weapons can also be hammers and axes, because why not?

Banned Prestige Classes:
Incantatrix, Spelldancer
Shadowcraft Mage, Shadowcrafter, and the other one (no shadow illusion boosting).
Abjurant Champion
-Most prestige classes can be fixed easily so there's no need to make a massive list. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil would lose casting levels, while a Blood Magus would gain some back, and Green Star Adepts could take full BAB and a rebuilt capstone.

Other clarifications and changes.

Magic Immunity does not care about SR and blocks any spell, save those the DM decides are sufficiently indirect. Supernatural abilities will be ruled case by case.
LA buyoff does not exist (it is a variant, that is not being used). If level adjustment is assigned it stays until/unless the rest of the party recieves similar bonuses.
NPC attitudes are a Cha+circumstances check, not Diplomacy.
Bluff and Diplomacy (Negotiate) have been rebuilt to work more like Intimidate.
Standing orders for mindless creatures start at max 25 words, may be reduced further.
Potions worth 100gp or less may be brewed in 1 hour.
Potions of Cure spells use 15gp instead of 50gp to determine their price (compare wands), though almost no other spells are appropriate.
Brew Potion governs all elixers, unguents, salves, ointments, glues, pigments, perfumes, dusts, powders, slingy stones, etc. Any of these is a specific "potion."
Scrolls worth 100gp or less may also be scribed in 1 hour (per spell).
Staves must have a minimum of two spells and one of them must cost 1 charge per use.
Scepters (LEoF) are allowed to have a single spell, and at 2 charges per use if desired.
Scepters have min CL 6th, and otherwise use staff pricing.
Unconscious creatures and saving throws/willingness are determined by the DM based on the creature's best interest/desire regardless of subterfuge. Hostile intent is hostile.
Stealthy spells (proof-of-concept, not in use): Creatures that succeed on saves against a non-obvious effect (typically a mind-affecting spell from an unknown source) could require a secret Sense Motive check vs the spell DC to notice the attack, with distraction penalties when appropriate (normally any successful save alerts the target).


From NPC's and Animals
-Brown Bear is effectively banned, because I nerfed it into an actual non-game-breaking grizzly bear.

From Character Creation
-Ridiculous stat rolling and uber point buys are "banned." Not even min-maxing 25 point buy, we're going arrays only, Elite or Specialized (a 25 point array I wrote which has a 17).
-Abuse of the lack of prerequisites on metamagic feats is explicitly called out as unacceptable, as are having too many spellcasters in the party, and having spellcasters that are too far apart in power level.


You will of course note many things others have mentioned, such as Greater Consumptive Field, which I have not. This is either because they're so broken that anyone who understands the entries I've already listed should be able to grok that worse things are also not allowed, or because if someone wanted it I'd consider and make some changes. Or because I just haven't thought of it. Stuff that is "banned," despite the word not actually truly applying to tabletop, have specifically been judged and removed with prejudice.

[Max Caysey]

From my main doc, everything from initial bans through character creation:
(italics and bullet points won't have transferred, so reduced legibility)

ACFs and "bans." No "ban" list is ever free from further additions as required, but these get the idea.

Complete Champion
-1st level pounce from Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian is banned, other spirit totems may be negotiable.
-Spontaneous Divination and Domain Granted Power for Wizards are banned.
-Travel Devotion gives you one move as a swift action, not ten of them.
-Ring of the Beast is banned.
Complete Mage
-Arcane Hunter is banned.
-Focused Specialist is banned.
-Arcane Fusion errata is ignored (you cannot metamagic spells within the fusion)
Dragon Magic
-Dragonscale Husk is a normal armor bonus, can be targeted as armor.
-Taking a Drakkensteed does not remove access to other mounts.
Drow of the Underdark
-Hit and Run Tactics Fighter is banned.
-Ring of Anticipation is banned.
-Shadow Cloak is banned.
Dungeonscape
-Dungeoncrasher is banned.
-Paladin's Spirit of Healing is equal to their Lay on Hands pool rather than double (since Lay on Hands has been upgraded)
-Penetrating Strike is banned.

Other
Whirling Frenzy is banned.
Improved Trip does not give you a free attack.
Knock-Down is banned.
Tripping now includes BAB on both sides of the check
Shocktrooper (heedless charge) provokes an AoO from target (compare Power Lunge feat).
Leap Attack applies only on the first attack.
Abrupt Jaunt is now Abrupt Blink (50% miss chance as Blink against one attack/effect, still huge)
Uncanny Forethought is banned.
Craven is banned.
Splitting is banned.
Valorous is a +3 enhancement that applies only on the first attack.
-Any other charge multipliers I haven't caught below also apply only on first attack.
Magebane is banned.
Wraithstrike is banned.
Heartseeker Amulet is banned.
Anklets of Translocation (and essentially all teleportation items less than 10,000gp) are banned.
Belt of Battle is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Massive initiative bonus items (say, anything higher than +2, no stacking) are banned.
Crafted Contingent Spells are banned.
Restful armor and Restful armor crystals are banned.
Animated shields are banned.
Bead of Karma is banned.
Metamagic Rods are on thin ice.
Sculpt Spell (clarification): must choose area mode on preparation.
Wand Chambers: banned.

Cloistered Cleric is banned.

Darkstalker: banned.

Hellfire Warlock's Hellfire takes a swift action.

Entangling Exhalation: banned. I do not care enough to want to use this myself, nor to fix it when its only use is turning simple at-will low damage effects into no-save AoE control effects.
-Exhaled Barrier could be re-worked into a proper metabreath feat. Exhaled Immunity is stupid and banned.

Healing Belts: banned. Yes, you heard me. They grievously violate all pricing guidelines, are so good that they effectively become mandatory for every character, displacing all other healing items, and push the "1 hour adventuring day" even harder.
-Cure potions have been reduced in price to match wand charges, to encourage use even at the lowest levels.

---
Negative hit points increased to -10-1/2 level? Or, is -10-full level so bad?


Spells
Alter Self uses 3.0 version (disguises w/poor quality wings/gills only, can alter clothing)
Assay Spell Resistance is reduced to +5, standard action cast.
Wraithstrike is banned
Conviction is banned.
Benediction is banned.
Divine Insight is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Glibness is reduced to +10 enhancement (and Bluff is not insane), could be competence instead if stacking remains a problem, or stripped all the way down to merely negating truth magic.
Inspirational Boost is 3rd level (but base Inspire Courage progression has increased)
Enhance Wild Shape can only grant extraordinary senses or boost an ability score.
Greater Blink is 7th level Sor/Wiz (6th for Bards)
Greater and Superior Resistance have 10 min/level durations.
Mass Resist Energy is 4th level.
Greater Mighty Wallop is banned.

Mage Armor and Shield are reduced to +3 each.
Enlarge and Reduce 3.0 versions are available (10%/caster level up to 50%, +1/-1 str at 20% and 40%), standard action cast, and at 30/50% they also give +1/-1 and then +2/-2 on weapon damage (could be restricted to creature-only, but leaving that alone for now).
-Enlarge Person is renamed Gigantize and is pushed back to 3rd level, does not stack with Enlarge.
-Reduce Person is renamed Shrinkify, otherwise remains unchanged, does not stack with Reduce.
Web lasts 1 round/level and once free only reduces speed by 1/2 (as creatures are still entangled within).
Glitterdust blinds for 1 round, dusting remains for 1 round/level.
Stinking Cloud only forces one save, lasts 1 round after leaving.
Entangle affects a 10' radius.
Greater versions of Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Entangle are available at 4th, 4th, 5th, and 3rd levels with their original effects.

These are banned, but for completeness I would make the following minimum changes:
-Wings of Cover is 4th level, and you lose your next turn.
-Lesser Celerity is 4th level and you lose your next turn.
-Celerity is 8th level and you lose your next turn.

Ray of Stupidity is banned.
Ray of Dizziness is banned.
Shivering Touch could maybe be fixed, but I'd rather just ban it.

A growing list of buffed spells in Spell Compendium shall be un-buffed.

Many spells which grant blindsense, blindsight, and burrow speeds are awaiting roundup for the chopping block. PCs are not meant to perfectly ignore stealth with ease any more than they are meant to have perfect stealth, nor has anything ever been written assuming they can just walk through earth. Some will remain, but only at 4th+ levels.

Blasting Spells: see Traditional Energy Spells below for changes to many popular (and unpopular) blasting spells, including the Orbs, Scorching Ray, Combust, Chain Lightning, and Freezing Sphere.
-Melf's Unicorn Arrow is banned.
-Ray of Frost, Acid Splash, and similar 0th level damage rays are 1d6.

Polymorph is not banned, but may also be restricted by HD of target, only allows the given creature types regardless of the target's type, forms may be vetoed individually at any time, and further restrictions may apply if needed (such as single-brained creatures being un-able to use multiple Hydra heads or Octopus limbs, disorientation penalties, lists of familiar forms, strength of new form limited to +X above original, etc.). Polymorphing is cool, but I will adjust or prohibt as needed to account for how monsters are not written for polymorph. If you just want a specific form, consider asking for a dedicated spell.
-No, the Pathfinder version is not the solution. A list of buffs and a disguise bonus is not polymorph. Polymorph turns you into something, and if that doesn't involve a massive replacement of stats, it's not polymorph.

Polymorph Any Object can be used only to duplicate the spells given in the PHB, as well as appropriate spells from other books such as fuse or transmute sand<->stone/glass and flesh<->ice. It can also instantaneously transmute objects as Fabricate, or temporarily turn an object or creature into an object within the parameters of Major Creation. If used to duplicate Polymorph, the duration increases to 1 hour/level. Spell might be renamed to Greater Polymorph.
-PAO (experimental): more powerful and instantaneous transformations such as lead into gold, turning an object into a creature, or changing a creature's race, might be possible with an xp cost. I'm thinking xp cost= gp cost of desired result as a safe minimum. This fixes a number of entries that seem to think the spell could already do this, and putting them here makes it more obvious that some thing are absolutely within range of wish and other non-epic (but still high level) magic.

Flesh to Stone (and similar): This family of spells might require some rewrites regarding the status of items worn and/or carried by the target. The classic petrification shtick of "incredibly lifelike statues," obviously has an expectation that the target's clothing and gear must transform with them to create the proper image. But 3.x relies heavily on the magic item system, where the PCs are expected to loot their foes' equipment. Thus, the PCs cannot actually use any petrify effects without causing an even worse version of the prisoner problem, needing to un-petrify and deal with the "defeated" foe in order to get the loot. This can be viewed as a "balancing" factor of such spells (and the freezing of gear an effective complication when it happens to PCs), but it simply clashes too much with gameflow, pacing, and the existence of flat-out kill spells at the same levels. Furthermore, well-known "exploits" found in the lack of real defintion or limitation on things like: petrifying someone, turning the statue to mud or dust, and purifying the mud/dust out of existence, potentially leaving them and everything they carried not-dead and not-destroyed but impossible to un-petrify, well that's the heck of a dumb loophole to have in the rules of the universe.
Potential fixes:
-Non-magical gear is always petrified, magical gear is not.
-Petrified items on a creature can be targeted and restored individually.
-The caster may choose to affect only the creature and not their gear, or everything.
-A petrified creature or item is never treated as stone for any other effects: even a stone to flesh spell only affects them because they are a petrified creature.
-Destroying or rendering incapable of de-petrification any of a creature's life-critical organs, a full cross-section of an item, or more than 50% of the original statue regardless of shaping, kills the creature or destroys the object. The soul departs, the magic of an item is lost, and effects which attempt to locate them work only as they would for a dead or destroyed target, because the target was in fact killed or destroyed, while petrified.

Planar Binding only allows you to bargain, bound creatures will never work for free. If a bargain is not made they may automatically return to their home plane once free of the binding regardless of effects or local conditions that would attempt to retain or compel them. If a bargain is made, the payment is bound to the agreement and returns to the creature's home plane with the same guarantee even if they are slain, or possibly immediately (at their option). Bargains for non-immediate or non-material rewards are enforced upon the caster directly- such as transporting the caster or their soul to a desired point on the creature's home plane, the transferal of magic or ability, etc. Payment may only be extracted in this way from the caster (and possibly children sired after the deal is made). Any equipment carried by the called creature may be designated "bound" (as DMG2) by the DM, making it useless to anyone but the called creature itself.
While you can only bargain, the spell remains risky because plenty of creatures would rather break out and do as they please anyway, as well as subverting your orders out of spite. While a "Planar Bargain" variant initially seems reasonable, the lack of risk and reliable bargaining is why Planar Ally has an xp cost in the first place (and the further deity restricted lists in the second place). No xp cost, no guarantees.
Defeating a creature you oringally called (or created) never earns you xp in any way, in case you had to ask.
The corpse of a called creature may be deemed unsuitable for other purposes. A core part of the calling descriptor's optics is that the body remains, the same as if they had planeshifted or travlled in some other way, but I could just as easily make a blanket ruling that elementals, outsiders, spirits, etc. slain on the material plane are always rendered useless no matter how they got there.

Planar Ally typically calls only a specific type of creature per spell depending on the caster's god (see Complete Divine), and casters whose gods aren't represented there or elsewhere can submit a list for DM approval. The DM may alter the default creatures to create unique individuals and/or substitute another creature if it seems appropriate, including instances where the caster has made an attempt to request a different creature by some means even if they don't have a specific name, or any other reason. As with Planar Binding, any payment offered is bound to the agreement and disappears even if the called creature is slain, and the creature's own equipment may not be transferable.

Animate Dead: is in line for nerf and/or split as soon as I decide what particular changes to use (or if a particular game will not need any changes).
The main split is: the "3.5" versions at 3rd/4th level become Lesser, and use the 3.0 skeleton and zombie statistics and spell details, with Greater versions at 6th/7th for the 3.5 templates and spell details (IIRC, 3.5 massively increased HD cap- the overall gp cost may have gone up a bit though).
The DM may make adjustments to the 3.0 statistics as neccesary, such as changing claws to hooves for a horse skeleton, allowing an alternate weapon such as a scorpion with a single more powerful stinger instead of claws, or altering movement modes. In rare cases this might include a direct upgrade such as an extra natural weapon, natural armor or statistic increase, or retained special ability, if and only if the DM feels they are neccesary to capture the feel of a high quality animated corpse, and do not create an overpowered result.
An alternative might be restricing Animate Dead to targets of humanoid (two arms, legs, and head, not the creature type) design and explicitly removing weapon and armor proficiencies, or even the ability to use them at all, regardless of proficiency (no untrained weapons and strappping on armor just leaves the minion entangled and unable to act). The goal here is to force the templated creatures into end results more like the original expectations without divorcing the bloodthirsty pokemon trainer model completely. In the end it is still very highly dependent on what the DM uses, just from a smaller allowed pool with the worst offenders removed- and making the spell much more situational as it no longer works on huge swathes of monsters. I much prefer the consistency of the lesser/greater split.
-Another alternative could be creating a separate "control pool" system that runs through all classes, taking the place of any and all companion or minion (heck, maybe even summoning! And transforming!) limits. This would be a more ambitious overhaul project that while attractive, really isn't in my preferred style of individually quick fixes- but to truly balance minions, one would need to properly incorporate them at the ground level.
-Yet another alternative would be the abolishment of automatic control entirely, and directly prohibiting it: no creature created by ones own spells, features, etc., could ever be directly controlled by the creator. This forces the use of external means such as simple bargaining, blackmail, or a "sufficiently external" effect like a Leadership feat for recruitment. Or more involved methods, such as creating specific types of creatures that naturally do a thing you want them to do (undead that hate their former loved ones). Or incentivise villains to control someone and then turn them into a useful monster (since a monster created from "nothing" is useless), making "body horror" more interesting. Or most simply, incentivising pairs where each can create undead or other creatures, but they must be controlled by the partner. Under this ruling, the intent is obviously that PCs just don't create undead or other minions, unless there is a specific two-character combo that the DM has ok'd and the game is being planned for.

Command Undead: Duration reduced to 1 hour/level, as it is effectively "Charm Undead." Though because nobody complains about commandeering a pile of mindless undead abominations, no comparison is ever made to the fact that those using Charm Person in the same way would be gutted morally for enslaving a bunch of people (assuming a Charm was sufficient to do so).
-The spell should also give the +4 on saves if allies are already threatening or attacking the target, as charm effects, and should allow a save even for mindless undead. "Charm Persoon, but it works on undead" is a fully valid reason to push the spell to 2nd level on its own.
-As interesting as it might seem to make mindless undead so "vulnerable" to control, in practice this means that (one, poorly considered) spell screws over of a foundational type of foe for the DM. Command Undead is, surprise surprise, not a 3.0 PHB spell, and thus was no part of any of the main testing of such foes. It appeared in 3.0 Tome and Blood (alongside two necromancer classes)- so, any testing it did undergo was most likely with the far weaker and standardized skeletons and zombies of 3.0, and none of the additional and more powerful mindless undead added in later MMs or using the 3.5 templates.

Summon spells: the summon X lines may be cast as a standard action by anyone without any special features, in which case the creature(s) will appear immediately and be vulnerable to attack, but are unable to act until the start of your next turn. Rapid Summoning can be taken as a feat by anyone with an appropriate spell.
-This is mostly to reconcile the existence of such features and items, which are weirdly restricted but also widely assumed. Rather than try to make a dozen ACFs just to let characters who can can summon spells function at full speed, a basic tradeoff added to the spells themselves and a general feat seem much more effective.

Summon spell lists: I've rewritten the Summon Monster list based on the 3.0 and 3.5 lists and the changes made. Summon Nature's Ally will use the same list for natural creatures, but without templates, and needs to have some fey/plants/beasts added.

Gate: all creatures are unique creatures, boom done.

Sending: while the response must be made immediately, the recieved message lingers and is easily recalled for several minutes (so it can be commited to memory or written down). Because while it would make narrative sense in a book for something to hinge on failure to immediately write down a Sending, for practical use and actual play standards, it's better to be clear that the recipient has every opportunity to commit the information.



Disguise magic and skills (clarification): successful spot checks inform the user that the target is disguised, ex: "Something seems off, you think that X is under some sort of disguise."
-People who don't know anything about the sort of creature you are disguised as take a -10 penalty on their spot checks.

Line areas (clarification): as per Rules Compendium p135, when a line goes through an exact intersection, it hits all squares around that point. Thus a 5' wide line can always be aimed such that it will hit a given 10' square- just look at the diagram. Furthermore, because you can fire a line at any angle you want, you can always avoid hitting people at the "end" of a line, by angling it up or down so that it grounds out before or flies over a certain square.

Mirror Image (clarification): if you don't spread out your images, people can just swing blindly at you for 50% miss chance, no special rulings needed. If you do, they can make educated guesses about which one is you. A typical response would be to ready an action to attack whichever image launches a spell or projectile, or to attack whichever image is shown to be solid by an ally's action.

Dominate (clarification/houserule): subsequent saves do not currently end the spell, because that would make it impossible to dominate anyone with half a spine, making it rather useless and non-scary for long-term compulsion. However, anyone with half a spine has plenty of room to resist and subvert orders, and as a spell that requires a move action directive to change orders, you can be under only one set of orders at a time- so making that save to resist a subersive order means you're free. Until they issue a new order that sticks (and there are plenty that won't trigger that extra save). Intelligently worded orders require an intelligent being, while an emotionally agitated fool might give easily subverted orders.


PHB list of 1 round casting time spells: antilife shell, call lightning, changestaff, creeping doom, deep slumber, dominate animal/person, enlarge person, enthrall, fire storm, lesser geas, hypnotism, insect plague, modify memory (1 round+), mount, reduce person, sleep, statue, storm of vengeance, summon X, zone of silence. Similar spells may have their casting times adjusted at any time, and many items ought to as well.
-Also: baric Inspire Heroics. None of the other songs for whatever reason, just this one.

1 round casting time spells in items that don't inheret casting times: Mostly this is calling out Potions of Enlarge Person, normally a super cheap and super powerful buff. With the nerfs applied above, those versions of Enlarge/Reduce are fine acting at potion speed, but a potion of Gigantize should not take effect until the start of your next turn (still effectively granting you an un-interruptible casting benefit). Other items have often had their cost, trigger, and duration heavily modified, and so should be ruled individually.
-Items that produce sleep, or use prices based on sleep items, need to have this accounted for.

Phantom Steed: should probably be nerfed into submission. It grants scaling speed into flight which might have been less ridiculous when fly was 90' Good and flight items were wrong decimal point cheap, but not now.

Prestidigitation only manifests one effect. Yeah that's right, I'm even nerfing the Big P. The available effects of prestidigitation will also be limited by that of any dedicated cantrips added- in particular the cleaning effect needs to shrink, 'cause that's good enough to be its own spell, and eventually Big P will have its own entry with a fully revised list.

Move Silently: the penalty for moving faster than half your speed but not more than double your speed is -10. The bonus for remaining still, if needed, might be +10 (say for invisible creatures). Since you normally only roll for movement this isn't likely to come up, and could increase for holding your breath or not apply at all if you're moving too much while "standing still."

Characters with Item Creation feats may designate what type of materials they primarily use for item creation: gems, rare metals, rare plants, monster bits, art objects, etc. Generally this should not restrict any item creation in a city, but may allow you to create items in the field (such as a megadungeon) without a vendor to buy "crafting components" from, depending on what you've found, as well as defining a general theme for the visuals of anything you craft.

Magic Items
-My magic item bans and alterations notes are much older than the rest, so some entries will need to be revisited. But more importantly I only got through the DMG and about half of MiC, with a few extras.
-Which means I don't have explicit notes on Complete Mage and Complete Champion, but many of their items are most definitely getting whacked.
-A character may only wield as many weapons or "weapons" as they normally have hands. Some creatures have fewer slots for other magic items due to physiology, and the majority of humanoids only have two "slots" that can activate weapon properties.
Thus, holding a weapon in the same hand as a gauntlet suppresses any weapon properties of that gauntlet. Actively wielding armor or shield spikes or a hidden blade, will suppress a held weapon (while applying those of the new weapon), though if wielding two weapons you may choose which to retain and which to suppress (as you are now wielding a body blade and a weapon, one primary and one "off-hand").
-This still isn't enough to fix the ridiculous initiative bonus items mind you, those are still banned.
Magic Item Changes
-Sending Stones can use whispering candle, whispering sand, or forest voice as their prerequisite, and no longer function accross planes. They still use a single message and response of 25 words, because they're cheap- and while this does encourage obsessive word counting, it avoids the drawbacks of timing a normal conversation.
-Bags of Holding, Handy Haversacks, and similar use shrink item as their default prerequisite. Rupturing the bag causes all items to spill out, rather than being permanently lost in a method more powerful than anything short of a 9th level spell. Being in the "extradimensional space" of one of these or any similarly priced storage item, does not count as being on another plane, thereby not preventing various effects.
-Sizing weapons can also be hammers and axes, because why not?

Banned Prestige Classes:
Incantatrix, Spelldancer
Shadowcraft Mage, Shadowcrafter, and the other one (no shadow illusion boosting).
Abjurant Champion
-Most prestige classes can be fixed easily so there's no need to make a massive list. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil would lose casting levels, while a Blood Magus would gain some back, and Green Star Adepts could take full BAB and a rebuilt capstone.

Other clarifications and changes.

Magic Immunity does not care about SR and blocks any spell, save those the DM decides are sufficiently indirect. Supernatural abilities will be ruled case by case.
LA buyoff does not exist (it is a variant, that is not being used). If level adjustment is assigned it stays until/unless the rest of the party recieves similar bonuses.
NPC attitudes are a Cha+circumstances check, not Diplomacy.
Bluff and Diplomacy (Negotiate) have been rebuilt to work more like Intimidate.
Standing orders for mindless creatures start at max 25 words, may be reduced further.
Potions worth 100gp or less may be brewed in 1 hour.
Potions of Cure spells use 15gp instead of 50gp to determine their price (compare wands), though almost no other spells are appropriate.
Brew Potion governs all elixers, unguents, salves, ointments, glues, pigments, perfumes, dusts, powders, slingy stones, etc. Any of these is a specific "potion."
Scrolls worth 100gp or less may also be scribed in 1 hour (per spell).
Staves must have a minimum of two spells and one of them must cost 1 charge per use.
Scepters (LEoF) are allowed to have a single spell, and at 2 charges per use if desired.
Scepters have min CL 6th, and otherwise use staff pricing.
Unconscious creatures and saving throws/willingness are determined by the DM based on the creature's best interest/desire regardless of subterfuge. Hostile intent is hostile.
Stealthy spells (proof-of-concept, not in use): Creatures that succeed on saves against a non-obvious effect (typically a mind-affecting spell from an unknown source) could require a secret Sense Motive check vs the spell DC to notice the attack, with distraction penalties when appropriate (normally any successful save alerts the target).


From NPC's and Animals
-Brown Bear is effectively banned, because I nerfed it into an actual non-game-breaking grizzly bear.

From Character Creation
-Ridiculous stat rolling and uber point buys are "banned." Not even min-maxing 25 point buy, we're going arrays only, Elite or Specialized (a 25 point array I wrote which has a 17).
-Abuse of the lack of prerequisites on metamagic feats is explicitly called out as unacceptable, as are having too many spellcasters in the party, and having spellcasters that are too far apart in power level.


You will of course note many things others have mentioned, such as Greater Consumptive Field, which I have not. This is either because they're so broken that anyone who understands the entries I've already listed should be able to grok that worse things are also not allowed, or because if someone wanted it I'd consider and make some changes. Or because I just haven't thought of it. Stuff that is "banned," despite the word not actually truly applying to tabletop, have specifically been judged and removed with prejudice.

Wow... I would not want to play in your game... you’ve basically removed all the things I use in my builds! 🤯

One might say some of your bans for spellcaster are valid but why tho would you ban things for fighters and barbarians? That make little sense to me without further explanation... but as always if you have fun and all that ☺️

[Kitsuneymg]

I play pathfinder 1e. And this is going to be super controversial.

I ban vancian casting. We use spheres of power. Advanced talents are on a case-by-case, game-by-game basis. But I’ve never allowed Improved Afterimage/Temporal haste.

Multiple simultaneous companions. You can have a familiar, animal companion, drake, bound creature, conjuration companion, etc. but you can only have one with you at a time. I might make an exception for beastmastery if someone demonstrates they can run a zoo without slowing down turns. We use roll20, so basically people that can write their own macros.

I ban the joke bull**** (Jester’s handbook, bear sphere, etc). Most games I ban Tech sphere and similar classes. Just go find a star finder or Star Wars group FFS.

If the rest of the table is down here doing 2d6+12 damage twice a round, and you’ve got your 4 attacks for 3d8+4d6+2*level+bane barrage inquisitor, we’ll have a talk about appropriate table balance. But I don’t tend to ban specific things from the martial spheres.

I do encourage people away from bad options (fallen fae sphere, chained rogue, not using Spheres of Might options,) simply to help with table balance. But I won’t tell you that you can’t take a bad option if you want to, I just try to steer you to a better one.

[Fizban]

Wow... I would not want to play in your game... you’ve basically removed all the things I use in my builds! 🤯
And that is the true beauty of a "ban" list: it lets you instantly know whether someone will be comfortable playing under a certain "op level."

One might say some of your bans for spellcaster are valid but why tho would you ban things for fighters and barbarians? That make little sense to me without further explanation... but as always if you have fun and all that ☺️
Because fighters and barbarians can be broken too, and for the point at which I aim my game (MM1 monsters [dragons are outliers] vs the standard party, where it feels a way I can only describe as "how the game was supposed to be" back when I first started*), there are a bunch of things that need banning- particularly from the "so good literally every character in that archetype should have it" (DMG-given) definition of overpowered. Free pounce for taking a barbarian level is broken (even moreso than vanilla barbarian 1 dip, which is already super strong). Getting it for a feat or Cleric dip is also broken. Whirling Frenzy is zero-downside, all-upside, broken. Dugneoncrasher is essentially an at-will touch attack for massive damage when used the way everyone uses it, nope. Weapon damage was never intended to completely ignore all armor, pitch just about everything that turns it into "touch" attacks (Emerald Razor is like the one thing that gets to stay, because it has actual opportunity costs). Ubercharger "lol I one-round level appropriate enemies" is by explicit DMG definition broken (you spent zero resources to beat something that is supposed to cost four characters 20% of their spells and abilities? ha!), so all the components need to be nerfed and/or separated. Trip builds invalidate entire archetypes of foes and are unfun for the DM in general, so those get the same. Sneak attack is not supposed to work all the time, so pitch the stuff that makes it work all the time- which also keeps TWF blender rogues in-line.

You can play a game where the DM has taken MM3+ monsters and char-op'd and metagamed them against the party, and thus those builds are actually expected and required. But that's not the game I want to play- I want fights that require the whole party and last a few rounds, against normal monsters, in fair situations. And perhaps even more importantly, that's the kind of game my experience has shown to be required in the first place: no game I've been in has had more than two hardcore 3.5'ers that could even try to sustain that sort of game. You can't have half the party playing char-op and the other half playing no-op, and no matter how op'd a build you hand the latter, it's not going to change who they are.

*But with some extra layers of polish, tuning up and fixing a bunch of classes so that they work they way they're supposed to work. Monks that don't get hit, sorcerers that actually are equal but different from wizards, paladins and paladin-likes tuned up, druids toned down, bunch of defensive and shield-fighting and even some crossbow feats added, and so on. Most classes only have a couple lines worth of text, a few more plus new spell lists for the bigger overhauls.

[Kurald Galain]

From Pathfinder,
Authoritative Spell
Dazing Spell
Leadership
Sacred Geometry
Slumber hex
Magical Lineage and Wayang Spell Hunter traits
Chained Summoner
one-level dip of Crossblooded Sorcerer
a few of the variant channeling options
any build revolving around the Summon Monster line of spells, unless I know its player can still run his turns in a timely fashion

[Melcar]

So what is banned at your table? Tired of persistent spell? What spell like Shivering Touch breaks your/the game? No more stockpiles of nightsticks fueling DMM?

When I am DM'ing, what ever I choose to ban is campaign specific, meaning that I only remove it if it disrupts the specific theme/mood of the setting I'm trying to create. That might include saying no to certain alignments, or certain templates, like Chaotic Evil or the Saint template. It might be that I for a specific game removes the options to be spellcaster all together, or that they can only be spellcasters.

What I do NOT do is have a list of things I NEVER allow... Sometimes we play über optimized epic characters, and sometimes, we're level 1 commoners. Naturally, both games should not include the same list of options/bans!

In my personal experience, setting gentleman agreements with my players asking them not to disrupt the game with their builds seem to work a lot better than banning stuff. In that sense, I work with my players. Like if they want to make a pounce barbarian or a hit-and-run fighter or a focused specialist with domain granted ability ACF they can, as long as they play nice.

That makes the players able to play and build what they want and makes them less antagonistic against me for banning their specific wishes, thus ensuring they don't destroy my game...

The reason I'm this open is because as a player, I like more options than less. Therefore I want to give my players the same enjoyment! More options are always better than less.

[Rynjin]

From Pathfinder,
Dazing Spell
Sacred Geometry

Oh yeah, I forgot about Dazing Spell. Giga-banned. So banned, in fact, that it's been assumed banned by all my players even though I've never explicitly said nobody could take it.

I'd probably ban Sacred Geometry with a group of strangers, but with my current group of friends all I've asked is if anyone DOES nab it, they use one of the Sacred Geometry Calculator apps to speed the process...

[Quertus]

So what you ban all buff spells with a duration, that can’t be persisted? 🧐

Don't make us do fiddly math at the table. If we can't write your buffs down as a permanent¹ part of the character sheet, don't. Just don't. (unless the table can handle "fiddly math" without slowing the game down, I suppose - really, this is just a special case of "don't slow the game down")

¹ "permanent" until you level, die, leave the party, etc - "between sessions" math, not "mid-session" math


1 could be done at the right table with the right people...not everyone wants to play the hero.
2 & 3 I fully agree with...slowing the table down is a cardinal sin.

Oh, absolutely! I *prefer* tables where the balance range is *huge*, where Not!Thor and a Sentient Potted Plant can be in the same party!

[False God]

Nothing really. Maybe some default assumptions about the game and setting but those are discussed at Session Zero. Like, I don't use WBL or magic item shops, and I run the "slow xp" option.

But no, I just inform players that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[The_Jette]

I don't really have anything that I've banned. Then again, I've never had anyone at my tables try to use some of the things that people get up in arms about here. I always play with a party of "good" or at least "neutral" characters. So, Consumptive Field would never be used at my table because it's an evil spell. Stuff like that. My players get through tough encounters by using their resources in intelligent ways that takes advantage of their enemy's weaknesses while building up their own strengths. One time the group I DM for took out an Iron Golem by opening a pit under his feet with a spell, then casting Grease on the sides of the wall so that he couldn't climb out of it even with a Nat 20 climb check.

[AnonymousPepper]

Chaotic Evil.

Also CN, if the player is new.

[Biggus]

Would you mind explaining your thoughts behind (Greater) Consumptive Field, Venomfire, Wings of Cover, Polymorph Any Object, Craft Contingent Spell, Fell Drain, Initiate of Mystra, and the PrC's? I ask for your point of view, not to challenge or argue.


The Consumptive Field spells are mostly a problem with Persistent Spell, as they have no upper limits to the Str and HP bonuses so you could make yourself all but invincible with them. There's a school of thought that it's more economical to ban Persistent Spell, but to my mind the feat itself isn't unbalanced, it's the other things it can be used with. DMM for example I've made work like the Bard equivalent Metamagic Song, i.e. that you can't use it to add metamagic feats that would make the spell's effective level higher than the highest level of spell that you can cast normally.

Oh that reminds me, I don't allow Arcane Thesis or Easy Metamagic either as too much metamagic reduction is one of the things which can take casters from tier 1 to tier 0.

Venomfire I banned because it's ludicrously overpowered and has no upper limit to the damage, but now I come to look at it again, it could be usable with some heavy nerfing. Give it a damage limit of 10d6, make it apply to only one natural weapon (so creatures like Fleshrakers don't get to use it several times a round) and reduce the duration to either 1 round/level or 1 minute/level. Even with all that it'd still be pretty good for a 3rd-level spell.

Wings of Cover because it's an absolute "no" button which is only a 2nd-level spell. It seems totally unbalanced to me that such a low-level spell can completely negate high-level and even epic spells and effects.

Polymorph Any Object...I don't know where to start. It's sufficiently vaguely worded (especially the bit about "related") that it would require DM adjudication every single time. It gives you the Intelligence score of the creature you transform into, so you can become a great gold worm (or great prismatic wyrm, or great time wyrm if the ELH and Dragon Magazine are open respectively) which makes Wizards far more overpowered than they already are. There are whole threads about how to abuse this spell.

Craft Contingent Spell allows a clever caster to make themselves almost entirely unkillable. It's expensive, but at higher levels that's not much of a restriction.

Fell Drain can be applied to even level 0 spells. Put it on a multiple-target spell like Magic Missile and give a negative level to 5 different foes. Gets even worse with metamagic reduction.

Initiate of Mystra allows you to attempt to cast in a dead magic zone or an antimagic field, and it gives you Anyspell and Greater Anyspell as normal spells, not just domain spells. Any one of those things would be a decent feat on their own; all of them from a single feat is just absurd.

Frenzied Berserker primarily because it makes you impossible to kill with hit point damage while your frenzy lasts which seems idiotic to me, but also because along with Shock Trooper it's one of the two main things which allow melee characters to go from very high power attack damage to kill-anything-in-the-game-in-one-round power attack damage.

Hulking Hurler because it allows builds which can average over 100,000HPs damage per round.

Planar Shepherd in general because it makes Druid, already one of the five strongest classes in the game, considerably stronger. Specifically because of its Planar Bubble ability which can be used to make time flow faster for you than everyone else. Again, there are whole threads about how broken this is.

Ur-Priest allows you to get 9th-level spells at 14th level. It also allows some horribly OTT theurge builds.


Tainted Scholar, Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant


Actually yeah, these as well.



You can play a game where the DM has taken MM3+ monsters and char-op'd and metagamed them against the party, and thus those builds are actually expected and required. But that's not the game I want to play- I want fights that require the whole party and last a few rounds, against normal monsters, in fair situations.


That's exactly how I feel about it, I would totally play in one of your games.

[Nifft]

I prefer to whitelist on a per-campaign basis than to ban.

What's on the whitelist is mostly determined by the Session Zero discussion which establishes the basis for the campaign.

Each campaign has a different "palette" both in terms of threats, and in the specific tools the PCs can use to combat those threats. In my experience, this keeps the game fresh and interesting.

[Particle_Man]

Evil, either through actions or on the character sheet. I like to eat when I DM and don’t want a Saw scene during that.

[malloc]

Oh yeah, I forgot about Dazing Spell. Giga-banned. So banned, in fact, that it's been assumed banned by all my players even though I've never explicitly said nobody could take it.

I'd probably ban Sacred Geometry with a group of strangers, but with my current group of friends all I've asked is if anyone DOES nab it, they use one of the Sacred Geometry Calculator apps to speed the process...

I've always wanted to play a Sacred Geometry build, just to use Sacred Geometry. Run it under a time constraint--30 seconds to do the math (maybe less, haven't "playtested" it). That way things keep moving.

[Falontani]

Why these?


Beholder Mage breaks the action economy over its knee. None of my groups have attempted to nab it yet, but they agree thus far that it should be banned for all parties, so I won't use it against them either.

Illithid Savant is much the same as beholder mage, except that a party member did attempt to grab it. When I explained why I don't allow it, they understood, agreed, and went for something else.

Tainted Scholar uses it's taint score for spellcasting. It has no limit to the amount of taint it can obtain. It can obtain taint very easily. A single level in Tainted Scholar allows you to get an spellcasting ability modifier arbitrarily high at a very fast rate. It may not be as broken as some things, but it is powerful enough to warrant a ban.

D'vati are a headache inducing mess, that is incredibly difficult to work with. Depending on the reading they can do extremely well and are balanced just fine, utterly unusable, or incredibly powerful. I didn't ban them at first, I liked the concept. But then someone broke found a way to read certain feats that made it quite unbalanced. Eventually I learned that they just break the action economy even when designed not to, and just fall apart in different ways. For example: Druid/Windrider using themselves as an ubermount. Access to Manyweapon fighting and Multivoice. And a bunch of other tiny things that explode.

Anthro animals: This is a personal opinion more than anything else. Some of them are unbalanced (anthro bat). But more importantly to me, whenever I have allowed anthro animals in a pug type group (where I am getting new players) the people that ask specifically about anthro animals are generally not the type of people that I want in my group. They usually role play in a style very counter to the kind of role play environment that I strive to achieve.

[the_tick_rules]

Starmantle+evasion=95% immunity to weapons chance. I don't agree they stack to begin with but even if I thought it did just no.

[RNightstalker]

From my main doc, everything from initial bans through character creation:
(italics and bullet points won't have transferred, so reduced legibility)


I appreciate your depth and thoroughness. If I had a consistent table that played for long I'm sure I could get close to that if I really wanted to.



In my personal experience, setting gentleman agreements with my players asking them not to disrupt the game with their builds seem to work a lot better than banning stuff. In that sense, I work with my players. Like if they want to make a pounce barbarian or a hit-and-run fighter or a focused specialist with domain granted ability ACF they can, as long as they play nice.

That makes the players able to play and build what they want and makes them less antagonistic against me for banning their specific wishes, thus ensuring they don't destroy my game...

The reason I'm this open is because as a player, I like more options than less. Therefore I want to give my players the same enjoyment! More options are always better than less.

I would definitely prefer the gentleman's agreement route.


I don't really have anything that I've banned. Then again, I've never had anyone at my tables try to use some of the things that people get up in arms about here. I always play with a party of "good" or at least "neutral" characters. So, Consumptive Field would never be used at my table because it's an evil spell. Stuff like that. My players get through tough encounters by using their resources in intelligent ways that takes advantage of their enemy's weaknesses while building up their own strengths. One time the group I DM for took out an Iron Golem by opening a pit under his feet with a spell, then casting Grease on the sides of the wall so that he couldn't climb out of it even with a Nat 20 climb check.


Chaotic Evil.

Also CN, if the player is new.

Yeah I run heroic campaigns...if you want to run an evil character, then I'm the wrong person for your group.


The Consumptive Field spells are mostly a problem with Persistent Spell, as they have no upper limits to the Str and HP bonuses so you could make yourself all but invincible with them. There's a school of thought that it's more economical to ban Persistent Spell, but to my mind the feat itself isn't unbalanced, it's the other things it can be used with. DMM for example I've made work like the Bard equivalent Metamagic Song, i.e. that you can't use it to add metamagic feats that would make the spell's effective level higher than the highest level of spell that you can cast normally.

Oh that reminds me, I don't allow Arcane Thesis or Easy Metamagic either as too much metamagic reduction is one of the things which can take casters from tier 1 to tier 0.


First off, thanks for going through those, I really appreciate it.

I've gone ahead and banned Persistent spell and Improved/Easy Metamagic...which pretty much means nobody will want to play an Incantatrix which will get nixed too if they can abuse cooperative metamagic without persistent spell. I'm cool with Arcane Thesis as it only works on one spell...it's ok to have a signature in that sense. Of course now that I've reviewed it again and there are no feat prerequisites, that might change...but unlike the special, it CAN only be taken once.


Evil, either through actions or on the character sheet. I like to eat when I DM and don’t want a Saw scene during that.

I heard that.


Beholder Mage breaks the action economy over its knee.


Thanks for answering those as well, I really appreciate it.

I appreciate all of y'all. I should be starting a few campaigns soon and I want to not learn some things the hard way when others have already paid the dumb tax for me.

[Biggus]

I've gone ahead and banned Persistent spell and Improved/Easy Metamagic...which pretty much means nobody will want to play an Incantatrix which will get nixed too if they can abuse cooperative metamagic without persistent spell. I'm cool with Arcane Thesis as it only works on one spell...it's ok to have a signature in that sense. Of course now that I've reviewed it again and there are no feat prerequisites, that might change...but unlike the special, it CAN only be taken once.

Improved Metamagic I've changed so it gives -1 to the total spell slot increase, not -1 to each MM feat applied (same with the epic feat of the same name). That's my philosophy in general with overpowered stuff: if there's a simple change that can be made which retains the general character of the ability and leaves it still good but not too good, I'd rather do that than ban it entirely. I've found about 90% of broken spells/feats/etc. can be tweaked that way; my ban list is the things I couldn't find a good solution for.

With Incantatrix, I've also changed Co-operative Spell and Metamagic effect so that they have a similar restriction as Instant Metamagic: the effective spell level can't exceed the maximum spell level you can normally cast, regardless of whether it's your own spell or somebody else's you're altering. With those changes Incantatrix is still a very good class, but not brokenly good IMO.

My problems with Arcane Thesis are

1) it can reduce the spell slot adjustment of a metamagic feat to zero, which combined with other metamagic reduction can become problematic

2) it reduces all metamagic feats by one level, so for example you can have a stilled silent extended enlarged (etc.) spell for the original spell level

Change it to a minimum slot adjustment of one and make it adjust the total spell level by one, not each feat (you may be seeing a pattern here) and I wouldn't have a problem with it in itself, although I'm still wary of allowing too many different MM reducers.

Also, my copy of the PHB2 says it can be taken multiple times, just not for the same spell.

What do you mean by "unlike the special" btw?



I should be starting a few campaigns soon and I want to not learn some things the hard way when others have already paid the dumb tax for me.

Ha, I'm with you there. Several of the things on my ban list I haven't seen in play myself, I've just seen them mentioned online and gone "they do WHAT?!".

[Fizban]

Metamagic reduction: applies to the final total, not per feat. Arcane Thesis or Sanctum Spell can reduce a spell to its original level, but not below, and without those the minimum adjustment is +1.
-Persistant Spell, if allowed, cannot be reduced.
-There is no "Improved Metamagic" feat that applies to all metamagic.

I'm okay with Arcane Thesis going to zero, because if you really want to specialize in a particular spell, then having a small amount of metamagic on it for free is exactly what that need to stand out from generally applicable stuff you just happen to be using on that spell. +1 metas are duration, range, various energy defense piercing, and that's fine. If you've set up to reduce Empower to free, well there's already an item for that, and we'll see if your combo is too strong. And if you're trying to reduce Maximize, Twin, or Quicken to free, you've probably frontloaded a bunch of 1st level metamagic you can't actually use, so those privileges get revoked.

Good/Evil: the available moral alignments are Good, Neutral, and "you tell me." It is possible to play an Evil character, but people that want to play Evil characters often immediately go to far or think it gives them a license to mess with the party. It does not. If you have a not-nice character that can play with the party, they are allowed, but you don't write Evil on your sheet- and when it becomes important I will judge just what their exact alignment is.

Law/Chaos: if you're not sure how these work or are about to write a Chaotic Stupid character, it's lesson time. Lawful means you favor following external rules, Chaotic means you favor judging each situation individually regardless of precedent.* People that register as chaotic still live in cities with laws and even follow those laws, they just complain about and avoid laws they don't like, and lawful people know that much of the world is a lawless place. Just as with a morally dark character, neither of these gives you license to undermine the rest of the party.

*A character who follows "internal" rules is just Neutral, unless and until they actually show that theses rules they supposedly hold themselves to will not simply bend or break under pressure. Because if your "internal rules" change based on the situation, that means you have no highest default principle, you're waffling, you're a Neutral like most of the population.

No joke characters: sorry, but I don't find sentient potted plants or housecats amusing. If you want a "catgirl" or 1st level vampire or werewolf or something I can totally make that happen (I've actually written Manaketes from Fire Emblem, so "dragongirl" is already done!), but that's about as far as I'll go.

Beholder Mage, Illithid Savant, Tainted Scholar: another major reason I don't bother listing these is that they fall under the umbrella of "obvious bad guy/DM content." The Book of Vile Darkness actually says in the introduction to "hide this book from your players"- stuff that is obviously not written for PCs is not allowed for PCs (and of course the fastest way to find out is to just ask me about X). Tainted Scholar doesn't even apply in a game that doesn't use taint rules/content.

That's exactly how I feel about it, I would totally play in one of your games.
Thanks :smallbiggrin:

I appreciate your depth and thoroughness. If I had a consistent table that played for long I'm sure I could get close to that if I really wanted to.
The secret is that most of this stuff came long after the last game I actually had- those games didn't have any sort of ban list, and didn't or shouldn't have needed them. But analyzing them it became quite clear over time how many problems stemmed from half the party being drastically lower in power (or in one, above the power of the module), and it's not hard to just write a list of all the things you already know are too far to fit. Meanwhile I've been working on all sorts of little tweaks and bits of content to nudge this and that, years of asking questions like "but why does the monk really feel bad" and "did they actually have a reason to change this, and what were the consequences?" Recently I decided to start expanding the doc with more "context,' which basically means it's growing a series of essays like I'd post on the forum anyway. Thorough explanations are my jam.

[Rynjin]

I've always wanted to play a Sacred Geometry build, just to use Sacred Geometry. Run it under a time constraint--30 seconds to do the math (maybe less, haven't "playtested" it). That way things keep moving.

It's an interesting Feat, for sure, in that it's way overtuned, but not quite what I'd call "overpowered". It does a lot, but most Metamagic kinda sucks, and the characters that need it most (Blasters, primarily, though most casters can make terrifying use of Persistent) aren't really going to be pushed over the edge by getting Empower/Maximize for free, at least on its own (I'd likely do a partial limitation if you're a Blood Havoc Orc/Draconic Crossblood Sorcerer who ALSO wants to stack Sacred Geometry on top, but one or the other is fine).

I err on the side of allowing it mostly because I'd like to see people at my tables actually USE metamagic for once, especially the weirder or less used ones like Widen, Ectoplasmic, or Echoing.

...And yet still, nobody has taken me up on it.

[One Step Two]

I run from the same school of Whitelisting builds depending on the game I am running, session 0 is super important. The bans that can happen are such as if I am running a Heroic campaign, evil alignments are off the table usually. But there is one house rule which runs close to an admittedly large blanket ban:

Verisimilitude trumps RAW wonkiness, if the execution of a spell/feat/ability etc would break immersion and reasonable logic, even oddball logic for a magical realm, then it does not work. This is to cover all oddness of RAW such as the healing by drowning loop-hole and the like.
For a more specific example: The Thrallherd PrC states that thralls appear within 24 hours to replace lost ones. If you are in the middle of a wasteland five days away from anything that can support even basic life, Thralls will not appear out of no-where the day after simply because the class says so.

One ban that comes up often though in some campaigns I run, is there is no Raise Dead or True Resurrection, Resurrection is now a 9th level spell. Revivify, Death Pact and Reincarnate still exist, and other methods of cheating death such as Clone or even Wish are perfectly valid.

[RNightstalker]

Also, my copy of the PHB2 says it can be taken multiple times, just not for the same spell.

What do you mean by "unlike the special" btw?


The "Special" note at the end where it says it can be taken multiple times is what I'm referring to. I would only allow it on one spell per PC.



No joke characters: sorry, but I don't find sentient potted plants or housecats amusing.

... it became quite clear over time how many problems stemmed from half the party being drastically lower in power (or in one, above the power of the module)


Umm wha?! Playing a housecat? Thankfully I've never seen that one yet.

I've also noticed that modules don't expect much optimization of the PCs...I wouldn't mind starting some Classic NPC threads where the playground helps equip all the character we know and love...or loathe as many do lol. None of the famous NPCs come close to using WBL.

[DarkSoul]

Shivering Touch is banned.

Time Stop can't be extended or persisted, but can be empowered or maximized. Its duration is instantaneous.

My games are set in the Forgotten Realms so races are pretty much what's in Races of Faerun unless discussed beforehand, and even then warforged are still out. I put limitations on things that might seem arbitrary to some but they come from a mentality of wanting characters to feel like they're part of the world, not just a pile of abilities in a leather bag. For example, I told a prospective player he could either have Rashemi Elemental Summoning or Greenbound Summoning but not both because he couldn't tell me a good story about how his character traveled from one side of Faerun to the other, to justify having both feats. The player showed up with all the best options from pick-a-druid-handbook-online written down, right down to the anthro-bat.

[Quertus]

Illithid Savant is much the same as beholder mage, except that a party member did attempt to grab it. When I explained why I don't allow it, they understood, agreed, and went for something else.

Tainted Scholar uses it's taint score for spellcasting. It has no limit to the amount of taint it can obtain.

Uh… :smallconfused:

There's nothing *inherent* to Illithid Savant that makes it break action economy.

And Tainted Sorcerer Taint is kinda limited by Wisdom.


2) it reduces all metamagic feats by one level, so for example you can have a stilled silent extended enlarged (etc.) spell for the original spell level

OK, and? You just spent 5(!) feats to get Silent Stilled Extended Enlarged Stinking Cloud / Solid Fog / Glitterdust as a 2nd level spell… or 5(!) feats to get Silent Stilled Extended Enlarged Cloudkill as a… yeah, I'm just not seeing the problem here.


It is possible to play an Evil character, but people that want to play Evil characters often immediately go to far or think it gives them a license to mess with the party. It does not.

Agreed.


No joke characters: sorry, but I don't find sentient potted plants or housecats amusing.

For the record, the Sentient Potted Plant wasn't a joke character per se - it was a simple test/demonstration of the fact that one can *enjoy* an RPG while having *no* mechanical ability to interact with it. Think of it as a multi-decade precursor to Angry's Eight Types of Fun (and a rebuttal to those who claimed that it was impossible to have fun without equal mechanical contribution).

Just like one of my characters was to demonstrate that I could have literally thousands of minions, and *still* take my turns faster than *that guy*.

Or several of my characters were to demonstrate how OOC information affects ("taints") people's perception.

My characters are often to prove a point when people at the table just don't get it.

Sometimes, that person is me (Armus was my subconscious proving several things to my conscious mind, including that it was better at tactics).


If you want a "catgirl" or 1st level vampire or werewolf or something I can totally make that happen (I've actually written Manaketes from Fire Emblem, so "dragongirl" is already done!), but that's about as far as I'll go.

Sweet!


The secret is that most of this stuff came long after the last game I actually had- those games didn't have any sort of ban list, and didn't or shouldn't have needed them. But analyzing them it became quite clear over time how many problems stemmed from half the party being drastically lower in power (or in one, above the power of the module),

Balance to the table (and the module). Yup. :smallbiggrin:


Umm wha?! Playing a housecat? Thankfully I've never seen that one yet.

Take Leadership, get a Wizard cohort. Good times. (I've seen several.)

[Fizban]

Umm wha?! Playing a housecat? Thankfully I've never seen that one yet.
I haven't either, in practice, but I've seen plenty of threads over the years. Asking what the LA is for an awakened housecat, or for help optimizing a Tibbit (a were-housecat from the Dragon mag Compendium). Though I did build another player an optimized catgirl (gestalt were-Serval Scout), which was both too complicated and powerful for their taste.

I've also noticed that modules don't expect much optimization of the PCs...I wouldn't mind starting some Classic NPC threads where the playground helps equip all the character we know and love...or loathe as many do lol. None of the famous NPCs come close to using WBL.
That's because NPCs don't use PC WBL- they use NPC gear, which is much smaller. If you're interested in what the playtesters were using, find yourself a copy of Enemies and Allies from 3.0, which specifically says in the introduction that the iconic characters at the end of the book were used for playtesting. As in, that is what the standard monsters (which were barely changed from 3.0 to 3.5) were supposedly playtested against.

And ho boy, are those some un-optimized characters. 3.0 PHB-only, obviously, but Tordek has weapon spec for two different weapons and the Shot on the Run line for his Dwarven Thrower. Every weapon user has Improved Crit, sometimes multiple times- and yet yes, every character has a ranged weapon. Meanwhile we've been told that the Druid playtester never used Wild Shape for combat, Natural Spell didn't exist, and I'll bet if they ever used a Brown Bear in combat it wasn't until the thing was so under-leveled it was a mook (none of them have "animal companion" statblocks, because it controlled unmodified animals at the time). The Druid's main weapon is a throwing+returning sicmitar, with Far Shot, Improved Crit, and Weapon Focus for it. The only specialist is an Illusionist, the most DM-dependant school there is. Mialee has Craft Ring, Rod, Staff, and Wand, while Nebin has a pile of Metmagic and yet none of his prepared spells are noted as metamagic'd (I've been meaning to do a full gear inventory to see if Jozan's gear is over level, because crafting, in which case Mialee's should be as well, but. . . ). Both have Spell Focus: Evocation, followed by one for Illusion or Enchantment. Hennet's sorcerer list is not nearly as bad as one might expect, and he has Maximize at higher levels, so if he was competing against these wizard lists with no modification, Sorc would seem pretty dang powerful. None of the characters have Animate Dead, Planar Ally, or Planar Binding listed. On the other hand, Jozan has two copies of Divination. The Monk has Skill Focus: Move Silently.

It is entirely reasonable to say that the standard optimization level only expects you to actually be using 2-4 of your feats even at 15th level. The only things that stand out are how they all do indeed have lots of flat bonus items, including high flat bonus weapons (though in 3.0 stat boost and weapon enhancement were much better), and that the spontaneous casters actually do have decent lists. So spontaneous casters are expected to optimize their spells known, while everyone else is expected to faff about with Throwing weapons and whatnot. Once you really realize how low the bar and what the slant is, things become so much clearer. Combinations of four, five, six feats are not expected. Use of any metamagic beyond Maximize or maybe a full-cost Quicken if you're feeling fancy and change your prepared spells, not expected (which makes Sorcerers look oh-so powerful, because the Sorcerer can Maximize without bothering to write it down first le gasp!). Starting scores above 15, size changes (remember 3.0 Enlarge/Reduce don't increase weapon size or reach), massive bonuses to spell penetration and DCs, nope, not expected.

The boon and bane of 3.x is combining and stacking stuff from dozens of disconnected books. It's fun, but it's also exactly what breaks the expected power level, because the expected power level didn't even make efficient use of the PHB itself.


Verisimilitude trumps RAW wonkiness, if the execution of a spell/feat/ability etc would break immersion and reasonable logic, even oddball logic for a magical realm, then it does not work. This is to cover all oddness of RAW such as the healing by drowning loop-hole and the like.
I have an explicit list of how many weapons you're allowed to strap to yourself, and explanation for why lances don't get stuck in people.


For the record, the Sentient Potted Plant wasn't a joke character per se - it was a simple test/demonstration of the fact that one can *enjoy* an RPG while having *no* mechanical ability to interact with it. Think of it as a multi-decade precursor to Angry's Eight Types of Fun (and a rebuttal to those who claimed that it was impossible to have fun without equal mechanical contribution).
It may have been a joke for you, but I've seen that thread too. Or rather, the "What are the stats and LA for an Awakened Shrubbery" thread. And while I will grant that it is theorhetically possibly to enjoy an RPG with no mechanical input, I seriously doubt the average player will do so. Possible, but so rare that if you have such a person, you don't need to ask. Further, twisting a mechanically focused game to include a player who is refusing to engage mechanically, will most likely reduce the enjoyment of the mechanically minded players and DM. Some Paragon of Roleplaying Games Mastering might be willing to try, but I play DnD for the mechanics, and that player is just not going to fit in a game with me. Make them a co-DM on lore duty or something, sure, but don't ask me to play alongside or design encounters for them.

(I've read some of Angry's stuff, and they're usually right in general, but they also have a tendency to dump on mechanics that they don't personally find worth it when I still do. Which makes perfect sense when they're writing about 5e and I'm specifically sticking with 3.x for the mechanics.)

[One Step Two]

I have an explicit list of how many weapons you're allowed to strap to yourself, and explanation for why lances don't get stuck in people.

There's a soft ban/gentlemans agreement when it comes to what people carry at my table, the short version is: I won't demand carrying capacity minutiae rules as long as the party makes a reasonable amount of effort to stow and carry items. Long story short, Mules and a cart are invaluable with a simple hireling to tend it at low levels until a bag of holding or similar extra-dimensional spaces are acquired.

Though I would like to know your explanation for lances!

[Fizban]

There's a soft ban/gentlemans agreement when it comes to what people carry at my table, the short version is: I won't demand carrying capacity minutiae rules as long as the party makes a reasonable amount of effort to stow and carry items. Long story short, Mules and a cart are invaluable with a simple hireling to tend it at low levels until a bag of holding or similar extra-dimensional spaces are acquired.
-Realistic limits on the size of carried weapons will be observed. The biggest weapon you can wear on your belt is a Bastard Sword, and you can have at most one one-handed and one-light weapon on each hip. A two-handed non-reach weapon might be rigged to some sort of back harness, but this will likely preclude a backpack and stick up over your shoulder getting caught on things. A shortbow can be cased next to the quiver (which also typically goes on the hip), but any type of longbow must be carried or stowed on a pack animal, and the same with polearms and kite or tower shields. Bucklers (real not dnd) can be worn at the belt (on the sword hilt), and light or heavy shields can be strapped over a pack. A light crossbow could be strapped over a pack instead of a shield, but not a heavy crossbow. Wearing heavy armor for the entire day will fatigue you even without going to sleep in it, say, 4+Con hour limit.

I like storage items, they're a classic part of the game, but in order for storage items to matter, non-magical storage has to matter. The fact that spellcasters (and many "dex rogues") tend to have less strength and thus have trouble carrying even basic supplies without losing speed (particularly if they wear armor), and thus are desperate for 2,000gp+ magical storage items, is in fact a balancing factor.

As for the mule- heh, they brought a mule into WLD. I'd dropped the temperature to winter as part of a plan to pressure them to keep moving/punish anyone who forgot to write clothes on their equipment list (two did). Can't remember if it froze or got killed by wandering monsters when they left it in the other room. I wouldn't want to take a hireling on an adventure myself, since they'd probably get killed. If the party is able to get hirelings at all, they were accounted for, and the adventure will be expecting them to set up a base camp. Otherwise, there's probably just no one willing to take the risk. I do not think "hirelings" were ever seriously tested, and paying a person to carry your things around just seems demeaning for both sides. Even a proper noble character wouldn't have hirelings- they'd have their personal servants, whose welfare and actions reflect upon them.

Though I would like to know your explanation for lances!
It's nothing complex:
Realism and lances: I suppose the fix for lances getting stuck in people is just that magic lances never get stuck, the same way all non-armor magic items resize, etc (and weapons never dull from trying to chop through doors or stone walls). If you actually do run them through, which requires the target to have hit negative hp and thus actually be dying, then as you ride past, any effort to free the lance just works. Visually this probably means the target is forcibly rotated in place as you pass, until you're holding the lance behind you pointing backwards, at which point it pulls free and you can swing it back to position.
-Note also that jousting lances are designed to break on purpose, to show that the hit didn't glance off (and thus if it was pointed, would have gone through). A real lance either goes through or glances off, unless you charge a wall or something.

And further note that with charging and pouncing nerfed and separated, there shouldn't be anyone trying to lance-pounce. If they did get both, I'd probably tell them that getting the lance charge multiplier makes it impossible to make more than one attack, so they'll have to take the rest of their attacks with another weapon if they want the multiplier. And if that makes them change their mind, any build resources already spent can be refunded.

[One Step Two]

-Realistic limits on the size of carried weapons will be observed. The biggest weapon you can wear on your belt is a Bastard Sword, and you can have at most one one-handed and one-light weapon on each hip. A two-handed non-reach weapon might be rigged to some sort of back harness, but this will likely preclude a backpack and stick up over your shoulder getting caught on things. A shortbow can be cased next to the quiver (which also typically goes on the hip), but any type of longbow must be carried or stowed on a pack animal, and the same with polearms and kite or tower shields. Bucklers (real not dnd) can be worn at the belt (on the sword hilt), and light or heavy shields can be strapped over a pack. A light crossbow could be strapped over a pack instead of a shield, but not a heavy crossbow. Wearing heavy armor for the entire day will fatigue you even without going to sleep in it, say, 4+Con hour limit.

I like storage items, they're a classic part of the game, but in order for storage items to matter, non-magical storage has to matter. The fact that spellcasters (and many "dex rogues") tend to have less strength and thus have trouble carrying even basic supplies without losing speed (particularly if they wear armor), and thus are desperate for 2,000gp+ magical storage items, is in fact a balancing factor.

As for the mule- heh, they brought a mule into WLD. I'd dropped the temperature to winter as part of a plan to pressure them to keep moving/punish anyone who forgot to write clothes on their equipment list (two did). Can't remember if it froze or got killed by wandering monsters when they left it in the other room. I wouldn't want to take a hireling on an adventure myself, since they'd probably get killed. If the party is able to get hirelings at all, they were accounted for, and the adventure will be expecting them to set up a base camp. Otherwise, there's probably just no one willing to take the risk. I do not think "hirelings" were ever seriously tested, and paying a person to carry your things around just seems demeaning for both sides. Even a proper noble character wouldn't have hirelings- they'd have their personal servants, whose welfare and actions reflect upon them.

Reputation matters for more than Leadership, hiring people to work for you, and letting them die starts to affect people who will work for you, either no-one, or people demanding more money for dangerous work! With that said, WLD is a different challenge entirely! That poor hireling had little chance.

Speaking of wearing armor for long periods, I tend to use social pressure more than bans. If the party is fresh from a skirmish and needs to make a report, wearing your field gear is all well and good. If they are attending court for any other reason, coming with your plate and chain, even without weapons is seen as a major faux pas, if not an outright threat. There's a reason why town guards aren't happy with adventurers swanning through town armed to the teeth! As an example, a Scout/Ranger in my current game is equipped with Studded Leather, Longbow, quiver and a magical throwing dagger. He carries a few potions he has tied to his belt and has thieves tools on his person he can reasonably explain as hiding several lock-picks and tools hidden about his person, and I'm satisfied with that. If he unstrings his bow in town and keeps his cloak drawn, then it wont gather too much attention, but visiting a local lord dressed that way will definitely be looked down upon. Hardly fitting!

You have a greater eye for detail admittedly! I like the limits you've placed, but as with the above Ranger, if he wanted to optionally carry a short sword and shield, I wouldn't really mind too much to count it down to the weight to exactly his carrying capacity, the sword can go on his hip, and he can sling the shield over his back. However I would stop him short if he decided to try by himself alone to carry off a set of full plate he found.


It's nothing complex:
Realism and lances: I suppose the fix for lances getting stuck in people is just that magic lances never get stuck, the same way all non-armor magic items resize, etc (and weapons never dull from trying to chop through doors or stone walls). If you actually do run them through, which requires the target to have hit negative hp and thus actually be dying, then as you ride past, any effort to free the lance just works. Visually this probably means the target is forcibly rotated in place as you pass, until you're holding the lance behind you pointing backwards, at which point it pulls free and you can swing it back to position.
-Note also that jousting lances are designed to break on purpose, to show that the hit didn't glance off (and thus if it was pointed, would have gone through). A real lance either goes through or glances off, unless you charge a wall or something.

And further note that with charging and pouncing nerfed and separated, there shouldn't be anyone trying to lance-pounce. If they did get both, I'd probably tell them that getting the lance charge multiplier makes it impossible to make more than one attack, so they'll have to take the rest of their attacks with another weapon if they want the multiplier. And if that makes them change their mind, any build resources already spent can be refunded.

One house-rule I like using to let mounted combatants have a little more to do in combat after making a charge with a Lance, is in the rounds that follow, if they aren't using Ride-By-Attack, is they can use their Lance with reach as intended, but they can use their own BAB to direct their mounts Hoof attacks, as long as their Ride skill is equal to their BAB.

And as an aside, there's a feat from the Dragonlance Campaign setting I really enjoy, Tremendous Charge, letting you use your mounts Strength score for damage instead of the riders, representing the momentum of the blow, but it makes the lance you use take a relatively minor saving throw vs snapping. Not great with magic items, but thematic!

[RNightstalker]

That's because NPCs don't use PC WBL- they use NPC gear, which is much smaller. If you're interested in what the playtesters were using, find yourself a copy of Enemies and Allies from 3.0, which specifically says in the introduction that the iconic characters at the end of the book were used for playtesting. As in, that is what the standard monsters (which were barely changed from 3.0 to 3.5) were supposedly playtested against.


Most of the iconic NPCs were PCs to begin with, and I still don't think they got close to NPC WBL.

[Darg]

From my main doc, everything from initial bans through character creation:
(italics and bullet points won't have transferred, so reduced legibility)

ACFs and "bans." No "ban" list is ever free from further additions as required, but these get the idea.

Complete Champion
-1st level pounce from Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian is banned, other spirit totems may be negotiable.
-Spontaneous Divination and Domain Granted Power for Wizards are banned.
-Travel Devotion gives you one move as a swift action, not ten of them.
-Ring of the Beast is banned.
Complete Mage
-Arcane Hunter is banned.
-Focused Specialist is banned.
-Arcane Fusion errata is ignored (you cannot metamagic spells within the fusion)
Dragon Magic
-Dragonscale Husk is a normal armor bonus, can be targeted as armor.
-Taking a Drakkensteed does not remove access to other mounts.
Drow of the Underdark
-Hit and Run Tactics Fighter is banned.
-Ring of Anticipation is banned.
-Shadow Cloak is banned.
Dungeonscape
-Dungeoncrasher is banned.
-Paladin's Spirit of Healing is equal to their Lay on Hands pool rather than double (since Lay on Hands has been upgraded)
-Penetrating Strike is banned.

Other
Whirling Frenzy is banned.
Improved Trip does not give you a free attack.
Knock-Down is banned.
Tripping now includes BAB on both sides of the check
Shocktrooper (heedless charge) provokes an AoO from target (compare Power Lunge feat).
Leap Attack applies only on the first attack.
Abrupt Jaunt is now Abrupt Blink (50% miss chance as Blink against one attack/effect, still huge)
Uncanny Forethought is banned.
Craven is banned.
Splitting is banned.
Valorous is a +3 enhancement that applies only on the first attack.
-Any other charge multipliers I haven't caught below also apply only on first attack.
Magebane is banned.
Wraithstrike is banned.
Heartseeker Amulet is banned.
Anklets of Translocation (and essentially all teleportation items less than 10,000gp) are banned.
Belt of Battle is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Massive initiative bonus items (say, anything higher than +2, no stacking) are banned.
Crafted Contingent Spells are banned.
Restful armor and Restful armor crystals are banned.
Animated shields are banned.
Bead of Karma is banned.
Metamagic Rods are on thin ice.
Sculpt Spell (clarification): must choose area mode on preparation.
Wand Chambers: banned.

Cloistered Cleric is banned.

Darkstalker: banned.

Hellfire Warlock's Hellfire takes a swift action.

Entangling Exhalation: banned. I do not care enough to want to use this myself, nor to fix it when its only use is turning simple at-will low damage effects into no-save AoE control effects.
-Exhaled Barrier could be re-worked into a proper metabreath feat. Exhaled Immunity is stupid and banned.

Healing Belts: banned. Yes, you heard me. They grievously violate all pricing guidelines, are so good that they effectively become mandatory for every character, displacing all other healing items, and push the "1 hour adventuring day" even harder.
-Cure potions have been reduced in price to match wand charges, to encourage use even at the lowest levels.

---
Negative hit points increased to -10-1/2 level? Or, is -10-full level so bad?


Spells
Alter Self uses 3.0 version (disguises w/poor quality wings/gills only, can alter clothing)
Assay Spell Resistance is reduced to +5, standard action cast.
Wraithstrike is banned
Conviction is banned.
Benediction is banned.
Divine Insight is banned.
Nerveskitter is banned.
Glibness is reduced to +10 enhancement (and Bluff is not insane), could be competence instead if stacking remains a problem, or stripped all the way down to merely negating truth magic.
Inspirational Boost is 3rd level (but base Inspire Courage progression has increased)
Enhance Wild Shape can only grant extraordinary senses or boost an ability score.
Greater Blink is 7th level Sor/Wiz (6th for Bards)
Greater and Superior Resistance have 10 min/level durations.
Mass Resist Energy is 4th level.
Greater Mighty Wallop is banned.

Mage Armor and Shield are reduced to +3 each.
Enlarge and Reduce 3.0 versions are available (10%/caster level up to 50%, +1/-1 str at 20% and 40%), standard action cast, and at 30/50% they also give +1/-1 and then +2/-2 on weapon damage (could be restricted to creature-only, but leaving that alone for now).
-Enlarge Person is renamed Gigantize and is pushed back to 3rd level, does not stack with Enlarge.
-Reduce Person is renamed Shrinkify, otherwise remains unchanged, does not stack with Reduce.
Web lasts 1 round/level and once free only reduces speed by 1/2 (as creatures are still entangled within).
Glitterdust blinds for 1 round, dusting remains for 1 round/level.
Stinking Cloud only forces one save, lasts 1 round after leaving.
Entangle affects a 10' radius.
Greater versions of Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and Entangle are available at 4th, 4th, 5th, and 3rd levels with their original effects.

These are banned, but for completeness I would make the following minimum changes:
-Wings of Cover is 4th level, and you lose your next turn.
-Lesser Celerity is 4th level and you lose your next turn.
-Celerity is 8th level and you lose your next turn.

Ray of Stupidity is banned.
Ray of Dizziness is banned.
Shivering Touch could maybe be fixed, but I'd rather just ban it.

A growing list of buffed spells in Spell Compendium shall be un-buffed.

Many spells which grant blindsense, blindsight, and burrow speeds are awaiting roundup for the chopping block. PCs are not meant to perfectly ignore stealth with ease any more than they are meant to have perfect stealth, nor has anything ever been written assuming they can just walk through earth. Some will remain, but only at 4th+ levels.

Blasting Spells: see Traditional Energy Spells below for changes to many popular (and unpopular) blasting spells, including the Orbs, Scorching Ray, Combust, Chain Lightning, and Freezing Sphere.
-Melf's Unicorn Arrow is banned.
-Ray of Frost, Acid Splash, and similar 0th level damage rays are 1d6.

Polymorph is not banned, but may also be restricted by HD of target, only allows the given creature types regardless of the target's type, forms may be vetoed individually at any time, and further restrictions may apply if needed (such as single-brained creatures being un-able to use multiple Hydra heads or Octopus limbs, disorientation penalties, lists of familiar forms, strength of new form limited to +X above original, etc.). Polymorphing is cool, but I will adjust or prohibt as needed to account for how monsters are not written for polymorph. If you just want a specific form, consider asking for a dedicated spell.
-No, the Pathfinder version is not the solution. A list of buffs and a disguise bonus is not polymorph. Polymorph turns you into something, and if that doesn't involve a massive replacement of stats, it's not polymorph.

Polymorph Any Object can be used only to duplicate the spells given in the PHB, as well as appropriate spells from other books such as fuse or transmute sand<->stone/glass and flesh<->ice. It can also instantaneously transmute objects as Fabricate, or temporarily turn an object or creature into an object within the parameters of Major Creation. If used to duplicate Polymorph, the duration increases to 1 hour/level. Spell might be renamed to Greater Polymorph.
-PAO (experimental): more powerful and instantaneous transformations such as lead into gold, turning an object into a creature, or changing a creature's race, might be possible with an xp cost. I'm thinking xp cost= gp cost of desired result as a safe minimum. This fixes a number of entries that seem to think the spell could already do this, and putting them here makes it more obvious that some thing are absolutely within range of wish and other non-epic (but still high level) magic.

Flesh to Stone (and similar): This family of spells might require some rewrites regarding the status of items worn and/or carried by the target. The classic petrification shtick of "incredibly lifelike statues," obviously has an expectation that the target's clothing and gear must transform with them to create the proper image. But 3.x relies heavily on the magic item system, where the PCs are expected to loot their foes' equipment. Thus, the PCs cannot actually use any petrify effects without causing an even worse version of the prisoner problem, needing to un-petrify and deal with the "defeated" foe in order to get the loot. This can be viewed as a "balancing" factor of such spells (and the freezing of gear an effective complication when it happens to PCs), but it simply clashes too much with gameflow, pacing, and the existence of flat-out kill spells at the same levels. Furthermore, well-known "exploits" found in the lack of real defintion or limitation on things like: petrifying someone, turning the statue to mud or dust, and purifying the mud/dust out of existence, potentially leaving them and everything they carried not-dead and not-destroyed but impossible to un-petrify, well that's the heck of a dumb loophole to have in the rules of the universe.
Potential fixes:
-Non-magical gear is always petrified, magical gear is not.
-Petrified items on a creature can be targeted and restored individually.
-The caster may choose to affect only the creature and not their gear, or everything.
-A petrified creature or item is never treated as stone for any other effects: even a stone to flesh spell only affects them because they are a petrified creature.
-Destroying or rendering incapable of de-petrification any of a creature's life-critical organs, a full cross-section of an item, or more than 50% of the original statue regardless of shaping, kills the creature or destroys the object. The soul departs, the magic of an item is lost, and effects which attempt to locate them work only as they would for a dead or destroyed target, because the target was in fact killed or destroyed, while petrified.

Planar Binding only allows you to bargain, bound creatures will never work for free. If a bargain is not made they may automatically return to their home plane once free of the binding regardless of effects or local conditions that would attempt to retain or compel them. If a bargain is made, the payment is bound to the agreement and returns to the creature's home plane with the same guarantee even if they are slain, or possibly immediately (at their option). Bargains for non-immediate or non-material rewards are enforced upon the caster directly- such as transporting the caster or their soul to a desired point on the creature's home plane, the transferal of magic or ability, etc. Payment may only be extracted in this way from the caster (and possibly children sired after the deal is made). Any equipment carried by the called creature may be designated "bound" (as DMG2) by the DM, making it useless to anyone but the called creature itself.
While you can only bargain, the spell remains risky because plenty of creatures would rather break out and do as they please anyway, as well as subverting your orders out of spite. While a "Planar Bargain" variant initially seems reasonable, the lack of risk and reliable bargaining is why Planar Ally has an xp cost in the first place (and the further deity restricted lists in the second place). No xp cost, no guarantees.
Defeating a creature you oringally called (or created) never earns you xp in any way, in case you had to ask.
The corpse of a called creature may be deemed unsuitable for other purposes. A core part of the calling descriptor's optics is that the body remains, the same as if they had planeshifted or travlled in some other way, but I could just as easily make a blanket ruling that elementals, outsiders, spirits, etc. slain on the material plane are always rendered useless no matter how they got there.

Planar Ally typically calls only a specific type of creature per spell depending on the caster's god (see Complete Divine), and casters whose gods aren't represented there or elsewhere can submit a list for DM approval. The DM may alter the default creatures to create unique individuals and/or substitute another creature if it seems appropriate, including instances where the caster has made an attempt to request a different creature by some means even if they don't have a specific name, or any other reason. As with Planar Binding, any payment offered is bound to the agreement and disappears even if the called creature is slain, and the creature's own equipment may not be transferable.

Animate Dead: is in line for nerf and/or split as soon as I decide what particular changes to use (or if a particular game will not need any changes).
-The main split is: the "3.5" versions at 3rd/4th level become Lesser, and use the 3.0 skeleton and zombie statistics and spell details, with Greater versions at 6th/7th for the 3.5 templates and spell details (IIRC, 3.5 massively increased HD cap- the overall gp cost may have gone up a bit though).
-The DM may make adjustments to the 3.0 statistics as neccesary, such as changing claws to hooves for a horse skeleton, allowing an alternate weapon such as a scorpion with a single more powerful stinger instead of claws, or altering movement modes. In rare cases this might include a direct upgrade such as an extra natural weapon, natural armor or statistic increase, or retained special ability, if and only if the DM feels they are neccesary to capture the feel of a high quality animated corpse, and do not create an overpowered result.
-An alternative might be restricing Animate Dead to targets of humanoid (two arms, legs, and head, not the creature type) design and explicitly removing weapon and armor proficiencies, or even the ability to use them at all, regardless of proficiency (no untrained weapons and strappping on armor just leaves the minion entangled and unable to act). The goal here is to force the templated creatures into end results more like the original expectations without divorcing the bloodthirsty pokemon trainer model completely. In the end it is still very highly dependent on what the DM uses, just from a smaller allowed pool with the worst offenders removed- and making the spell much more situational as it no longer works on huge swathes of monsters. I much prefer the consistency of the lesser/greater split.
-Another alternative could be creating a separate "control pool" system that runs through all classes, taking the place of any and all companion or minion (heck, maybe even summoning! And transforming!) limits. This would be a more ambitious overhaul project that while attractive, really isn't in my preferred style of individually quick fixes- but to truly balance minions, one would need to properly incorporate them at the ground level.
-Yet another alternative would be the abolishment of automatic control entirely, and directly prohibiting it: no creature created by ones own spells, features, etc., could ever be directly controlled by the creator. This forces the use of external means such as simple bargaining, blackmail, or a "sufficiently external" effect like a Leadership feat for recruitment. Or more involved methods, such as creating specific types of creatures that naturally do a thing you want them to do (undead that hate their former loved ones). Or incentivise villains to control someone and then turn them into a useful monster (since a monster created from "nothing" is useless), making "body horror" more interesting. Or most simply, incentivising pairs where each can create undead or other creatures, but they must be controlled by the partner. Under this ruling, the intent is obviously that PCs just don't create undead or other minions, unless there is a specific two-character combo that the DM has ok'd and the game is being planned for.

Command Undead: Duration reduced to 1 hour/level, as it is effectively "Charm Undead." Though because nobody complains about commandeering a pile of mindless undead abominations, no comparison is ever made to the fact that those using Charm Person in the same way would be gutted morally for enslaving a bunch of people (assuming a Charm was sufficient to do so).
-The spell should also give the +4 on saves if allies are already threatening or attacking the target, as charm effects, and should allow a save even for mindless undead. "Charm Persoon, but it works on undead" is a fully valid reason to push the spell to 2nd level on its own.
-As interesting as it might seem to make mindless undead so "vulnerable" to control, in practice this means that (one, poorly considered) spell screws over of a foundational type of foe for the DM. Command Undead is, surprise surprise, not a 3.0 PHB spell, and thus was no part of any of the main testing of such foes. It appeared in 3.0 Tome and Blood (alongside two necromancer classes)- so, any testing it did undergo was most likely with the far weaker and standardized skeletons and zombies of 3.0, and none of the additional and more powerful mindless undead added in later MMs or using the 3.5 templates.

Summon spells: the summon X lines may be cast as a standard action by anyone without any special features, in which case the creature(s) will appear immediately and be vulnerable to attack, but are unable to act until the start of your next turn. Rapid Summoning can be taken as a feat by anyone with an appropriate spell.
-This is mostly to reconcile the existence of such features and items, which are weirdly restricted but also widely assumed. Rather than try to make a dozen ACFs just to let characters who can can summon spells function at full speed, a basic tradeoff added to the spells themselves and a general feat seem much more effective.

Summon spell lists: I've rewritten the Summon Monster list based on the 3.0 and 3.5 lists and the changes made. Summon Nature's Ally will use the same list for natural creatures, but without templates, and needs to have some fey/plants/beasts added.

Gate: all creatures are unique creatures, boom done.

Sending: while the response must be made immediately, the recieved message lingers and is easily recalled for several minutes (so it can be commited to memory or written down). Because while it would make narrative sense in a book for something to hinge on failure to immediately write down a Sending, for practical use and actual play standards, it's better to be clear that the recipient has every opportunity to commit the information.



Disguise magic and skills (clarification): successful spot checks inform the user that the target is disguised, ex: "Something seems off, you think that X is under some sort of disguise."
-People who don't know anything about the sort of creature you are disguised as take a -10 penalty on their spot checks.

Line areas (clarification): as per Rules Compendium p135, when a line goes through an exact intersection, it hits all squares around that point. Thus a 5' wide line can always be aimed such that it will hit a given 10' square- just look at the diagram. Furthermore, because you can fire a line at any angle you want, you can always avoid hitting people at the "end" of a line, by angling it up or down so that it grounds out before or flies over a certain square.

Mirror Image (clarification): if you don't spread out your images, people can just swing blindly at you for 50% miss chance, no special rulings needed. If you do, they can make educated guesses about which one is you. A typical response would be to ready an action to attack whichever image launches a spell or projectile, or to attack whichever image is shown to be solid by an ally's action.

Dominate (clarification/houserule): subsequent saves do not currently end the spell, because that would make it impossible to dominate anyone with half a spine, making it rather useless and non-scary for long-term compulsion. However, anyone with half a spine has plenty of room to resist and subvert orders, and as a spell that requires a move action directive to change orders, you can be under only one set of orders at a time- so making that save to resist a subersive order means you're free. Until they issue a new order that sticks (and there are plenty that won't trigger that extra save). Intelligently worded orders require an intelligent being, while an emotionally agitated fool might give easily subverted orders.


PHB list of 1 round casting time spells: antilife shell, call lightning, changestaff, creeping doom, deep slumber, dominate animal/person, enlarge person, enthrall, fire storm, lesser geas, hypnotism, insect plague, modify memory (1 round+), mount, reduce person, sleep, statue, storm of vengeance, summon X, zone of silence. Similar spells may have their casting times adjusted at any time, and many items ought to as well.
-Also: baric Inspire Heroics. None of the other songs for whatever reason, just this one.

1 round casting time spells in items that don't inheret casting times: Mostly this is calling out Potions of Enlarge Person, normally a super cheap and super powerful buff. With the nerfs applied above, those versions of Enlarge/Reduce are fine acting at potion speed, but a potion of Gigantize should not take effect until the start of your next turn (still effectively granting you an un-interruptible casting benefit). Other items have often had their cost, trigger, and duration heavily modified, and so should be ruled individually.
-Items that produce sleep, or use prices based on sleep items, need to have this accounted for.

Phantom Steed: should probably be nerfed into submission. It grants scaling speed into flight which might have been less ridiculous when fly was 90' Good and flight items were wrong decimal point cheap, but not now.

Prestidigitation only manifests one effect. Yeah that's right, I'm even nerfing the Big P. The available effects of prestidigitation will also be limited by that of any dedicated cantrips added- in particular the cleaning effect needs to shrink, 'cause that's good enough to be its own spell, and eventually Big P will have its own entry with a fully revised list.

Move Silently: the penalty for moving faster than half your speed but not more than double your speed is -10. The bonus for remaining still, if needed, might be +10 (say for invisible creatures). Since you normally only roll for movement this isn't likely to come up, and could increase for holding your breath or not apply at all if you're moving too much while "standing still."

Characters with Item Creation feats may designate what type of materials they primarily use for item creation: gems, rare metals, rare plants, monster bits, art objects, etc. Generally this should not restrict any item creation in a city, but may allow you to create items in the field (such as a megadungeon) without a vendor to buy "crafting components" from, depending on what you've found, as well as defining a general theme for the visuals of anything you craft.

Magic Items
-My magic item bans and alterations notes are much older than the rest, so some entries will need to be revisited. But more importantly I only got through the DMG and about half of MiC, with a few extras.
-Which means I don't have explicit notes on Complete Mage and Complete Champion, but many of their items are most definitely getting whacked.
-A character may only wield as many weapons or "weapons" as they normally have hands. Some creatures have fewer slots for other magic items due to physiology, and the majority of humanoids only have two "slots" that can activate weapon properties.
Thus, holding a weapon in the same hand as a gauntlet suppresses any weapon properties of that gauntlet. Actively wielding armor or shield spikes or a hidden blade, will suppress a held weapon (while applying those of the new weapon), though if wielding two weapons you may choose which to retain and which to suppress (as you are now wielding a body blade and a weapon, one primary and one "off-hand").
-This still isn't enough to fix the ridiculous initiative bonus items mind you, those are still banned.
Magic Item Changes
-Sending Stones can use whispering candle, whispering sand, or forest voice as their prerequisite, and no longer function accross planes. They still use a single message and response of 25 words, because they're cheap- and while this does encourage obsessive word counting, it avoids the drawbacks of timing a normal conversation.
-Bags of Holding, Handy Haversacks, and similar use shrink item as their default prerequisite. Rupturing the bag causes all items to spill out, rather than being permanently lost in a method more powerful than anything short of a 9th level spell. Being in the "extradimensional space" of one of these or any similarly priced storage item, does not count as being on another plane, thereby not preventing various effects.
-Sizing weapons can also be hammers and axes, because why not?

Banned Prestige Classes:
Incantatrix, Spelldancer
Shadowcraft Mage, Shadowcrafter, and the other one (no shadow illusion boosting).
Abjurant Champion
-Most prestige classes can be fixed easily so there's no need to make a massive list. For example, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil would lose casting levels, while a Blood Magus would gain some back, and Green Star Adepts could take full BAB and a rebuilt capstone.

Other clarifications and changes.

Magic Immunity does not care about SR and blocks any spell, save those the DM decides are sufficiently indirect. Supernatural abilities will be ruled case by case.
LA buyoff does not exist (it is a variant, that is not being used). If level adjustment is assigned it stays until/unless the rest of the party recieves similar bonuses.
NPC attitudes are a Cha+circumstances check, not Diplomacy.
Bluff and Diplomacy (Negotiate) have been rebuilt to work more like Intimidate.
Standing orders for mindless creatures start at max 25 words, may be reduced further.
Potions worth 100gp or less may be brewed in 1 hour.
Potions of Cure spells use 15gp instead of 50gp to determine their price (compare wands), though almost no other spells are appropriate.
Brew Potion governs all elixers, unguents, salves, ointments, glues, pigments, perfumes, dusts, powders, slingy stones, etc. Any of these is a specific "potion."
Scrolls worth 100gp or less may also be scribed in 1 hour (per spell).
Staves must have a minimum of two spells and one of them must cost 1 charge per use.
Scepters (LEoF) are allowed to have a single spell, and at 2 charges per use if desired.
Scepters have min CL 6th, and otherwise use staff pricing.
Unconscious creatures and saving throws/willingness are determined by the DM based on the creature's best interest/desire regardless of subterfuge. Hostile intent is hostile.
Stealthy spells (proof-of-concept, not in use): Creatures that succeed on saves against a non-obvious effect (typically a mind-affecting spell from an unknown source) could require a secret Sense Motive check vs the spell DC to notice the attack, with distraction penalties when appropriate (normally any successful save alerts the target).


From NPC's and Animals
-Brown Bear is effectively banned, because I nerfed it into an actual non-game-breaking grizzly bear.

From Character Creation
-Ridiculous stat rolling and uber point buys are "banned." Not even min-maxing 25 point buy, we're going arrays only, Elite or Specialized (a 25 point array I wrote which has a 17).
-Abuse of the lack of prerequisites on metamagic feats is explicitly called out as unacceptable, as are having too many spellcasters in the party, and having spellcasters that are too far apart in power level.


You will of course note many things others have mentioned, such as Greater Consumptive Field, which I have not. This is either because they're so broken that anyone who understands the entries I've already listed should be able to grok that worse things are also not allowed, or because if someone wanted it I'd consider and make some changes. Or because I just haven't thought of it. Stuff that is "banned," despite the word not actually truly applying to tabletop, have specifically been judged and removed with prejudice.

Why ban hit and run tactics? Do your players run around as drow all the time or something? +2 LA is a pretty big hit as it is.

[Biggus]

Verisimilitude trumps RAW wonkiness, if the execution of a spell/feat/ability etc would break immersion and reasonable logic, even oddball logic for a magical realm, then it does not work.


Well put. I'm very much in the camp that says if something is obviously stupid, it's the DM's right and duty to say "very funny, no of course that doesn't happen" no matter what the letter of the rules might be. Although you might get some leeway if you can make it sufficiently cool or funny.



OK, and? You just spent 5(!) feats to get Silent Stilled Extended Enlarged Stinking Cloud / Solid Fog / Glitterdust as a 2nd level spell… or 5(!) feats to get Silent Stilled Extended Enlarged Cloudkill as a… yeah, I'm just not seeing the problem here.


Those were just the first four +1 metamagic feats that came to mind, there are much better ones out there. Also, a human Wizard 10/ Incantatrix 10 gets 14 feats including the Incantatrix's 4 bonus metamagic feats, so a character who's focused on metamagic having several +1 feats without taking them just for Arcane Thesis is hardly implausible.


The "Special" note at the end where it says it can be taken multiple times is what I'm referring to. I would only allow it on one spell per PC.


Ah I see, yes that seems reasonable.

[Fizban]

If they are attending court for any other reason, coming with your plate and chain, even without weapons is seen as a major faux pas, if not an outright threat.
Indeed. But most modules have little or no interaction with true nobles (I expect because most module writers for 3.x weren't any more comfortable trying to write actual social scenes than I am), and often outright make any significant NPC a retired adventurer.

That said, this is also why I'm nerfing Prestidigitation: anyone who's read the list of effects given in Tome and Blood will respond to any claim that they might be dirty that actually they cast Prestidigitation once and now the entire party is spotless and shining whenever they're going to talk to someone. Yeah no- if I'm specifically calling you out for needing to put in some effort to look respectable, that's gonna need at least a little bit of effort. Don't make me start tracking all the individual holes in your clothing too, that'll be a strip down and Mending for every single one.

For heavies that want armor available at all times, there's the Ring of Arming or possibly Glamered armor, or if they're a Paladin, a spell for that. These also go back to mundane and magical storage being important, since claiming that you're an adventurer and clean your gear with Prestidigitation should not invalidate thousands of gp worth of items that you're supposed to need to get gear into non-combat areas.

You have a greater eye for detail admittedly! I like the limits you've placed, but as with the above Ranger, if he wanted to optionally carry a short sword and shield, I wouldn't really mind too much to count it down to the weight to exactly his carrying capacity, the sword can go on his hip, and he can sling the shield over his back. However I would stop him short if he decided to try by himself alone to carry off a set of full plate he found.
Yeah, that all fits within my parameters, unless he tries to put the longbow on his back- I would suggest an Efficient Quiver.

And as an aside, there's a feat from the Dragonlance Campaign setting I really enjoy, Tremendous Charge, letting you use your mounts Strength score for damage instead of the riders, representing the momentum of the blow, but it makes the lance you use take a relatively minor saving throw vs snapping. Not great with magic items, but thematic!
That feat is why the second part of the lance note exists. I came across it again back when I was figuring out builds for Fire Emblem style Pegasus Knights, but there's just no way to fix the problem with damaging your own weapon- and then going back over joust-related stuff, I realized that the feat is just wrong. Because jousting lances take damage because they're designed to do so, rather than this being a normal thing.

(For the Peg Knights, I gave them back finessable light lances, and added a Weapon Finesse buff to give them a bit of damage to multiply).


Most of the iconic NPCs were PCs to begin with, and I still don't think they got close to NPC WBL.
Weren't most of the iconic NPCs from the designers' games played in previous editions before magic items had prices?

Why ban hit and run tactics? Do your players run around as drow all the time or something? +2 LA is a pretty big hit as it is.
Because I got sick of reading people suggesting it for every dex character, even when they're not drow. I generally do abolish racial and alignment restrictions unless they have a good reason, and this one doesn't, but at that point it's effectively mandatory. The LA only matters if you're requiring not just full drow, but also prohibiting no-LA lesser drow and half-drow.

Furthermore, Dex is not supposed to do damage, and giving away dex to damage just turns it into more of a god-stat, and then on top of that they want to give even more initiative bonuses. It's also similar to and yet completely different from sneak attack, ripe for confusion, and begging the question of why you didn't just make a Rogue instead (the answer is because you saw the ACF, and decided to add a fighter dip for a pile of extra damage). And finally, as noted above, even though dex is not supposed to do damage I've still given some to Weapon Finesse anyway (you can get half your dex to damage, minus any str penalty you have, not stacking with str of course). Shadow Blade is in a grey area- it is additive, so str penalties still matter. I don't quite want to remove it, but with the Finesse fix I should just remove it- maybe if I made it apply only on strikes instead? But that's still huge compared to the only comparable feats in the book, Desert Fire, which gives a non-scaling d6, only on strikes, only if you move 10', and Rapid Assualt which gives a non-scaling d6 that only ever works on the first round. Shadow Blade is just someone's naked support of dex gods, no thank you.

The key problem with wanting dex to damage, and the reason people want it, is that dex scales. The stat which provides scaling damage bonus is supposed to be str, even for ranged weapons. Even it were balanced for starting character +2-3 dex, it eventually becomes +6 or +8 or +10, at the same cost of essentially nothing, many many levels ago. The standard is supposed to be around +2 for a feat or similar feature. Being flat-footed conditional doesn't change that, it's just maybe enough to account for having no weapon restrictions. I'm mostly fine with Sneak Attack Fighter, but Hit-and-Run Fighter isn't something intended for actual fighters- it just sweetens the power of a fighter-dip to cram dex feats to ignore str before going back to a sneak attack or ToB class. And fighter dip is already as strong as it needs to be.

Edit: returning to realistic weapon carrying for a bit, yeah turns out Shad went and back-scabbarded a longbow too. Tie a nail on tight and you can hang it off a baldric or belt just fine. So longbows and spears can be carried that way too, but I'm still saying it precludes a backpack, as that would hold the shaft either too far or too in-line with your legs.

[Max Caysey]

I've also noticed that modules don't expect much optimization of the PCs...I wouldn't mind starting some Classic NPC threads where the playground helps equip all the character we know and love...or loathe as many do lol. None of the famous NPCs come close to using WBL.

I would be totally down with that! Start a thread!

[King of Nowhere]

While i do keep lists, i mostly work on two guidelines:

1) nothing can screw up a similarly leveled opponent without some realistic option for defence.
This must be valued case by case.

A saving throw vs death is ok, because the opponent gets to roll. A touch attack causing death is not, because touch attacks are almost sure to hit. A touch attack for 100 damage at level 20 is ok, because at that level you can survive it. 300 damage would not be ok. Status effects that make one lose sctions, without saving throws, are not ok. Uberchargers are not ok, they one shot you and you can't do anything.
I prefer to play at lower op levels than most. If i were with a high op group where an ubercharge would be met with an abrupt jaunt and a touch attack had to face several layers of miss chance, then the guideline would be interpreted differently.

2) anything you use can be used against you.

My world has monsters, but the main plots are driven by power games between powerful actors. Those bosses are npcs built with full pc optimization, with full pc gear. They get to be as cool as the pcs, because a hero is only as good as his opponent, and a world populated by morons is not treated with respect.
So, every build trick that the players can use, npc bosses can use too, and viceversa.
In edge cases of rule 1, i generally let the players decide: you can use it, but your enemies will also have it. Or nobody has it. Your choice.
As a partial exception, every player is entitled to a few unique tricks of their choice, representing them being the best at something. High-end bosses also are entitled a few unique tricks.

In any case, after i decide whether something is allowed or banned or nerfed, i write it down.
Most of my players are only moderately skilled with mechanics, and a clear list of what's allowed and what's not helps them more than a loosely defined agreement. The agreement works for those with enough skill to pinpoint their optimization level adequately

[Kurald Galain]

Furthermore, Dex is not supposed to do damage, and giving away dex to damage just turns it into more of a god-stat,
That bears repeating, yes.

[Rynjin]

I've allowed easy access to Dex to Damage effects in my games for many years now, and never noticed any imbalance.

They make for great all-rounder characters, but still can't touch Str characters for raw damage output. Better defense for worse offense has always seemed a fair trade to me.

Before the inevitable questioning "would you allow Str to Ref and AC as well?" the answer is yes, I have. It also didn't really set the world on fire.

[Gnaeus]

Our actual ban lists tend to be very small because our group has a pretty coherent idea of what kind of game we want to run. A lot of things people have mentioned would probably be instantly banned, but because no one in our game ever tried using Mirror Mephits or PAOing twice to make changes permanent we never banned them. Our nerf rules (AKA Polymorph is fun, thematic and party friendly so I want it in play, how do we make that fair?) tend to be longer.

[Kurald Galain]

I've allowed easy access to Dex to Damage effects in my games for many years now, and never noticed any imbalance.

They make for great all-rounder characters

Yes, that's what it means when people say Dex is the God Stat. A dex character has great armor class, reflex saves, initiative, ranged attacks, stealth, thief skills, balance, and escape artist, all in addition to hitting things really hard; whereas a str character can hit things really hard, and that's it. A dex char is a "great all-rounder" in that he's instantly and cheaply good at practically everything, whereas a str char gets much less mileage out of the same investment.

[False God]

Yes, that's what it means when people say Dex is the God Stat. A dex character has great armor class, reflex saves, initiative, ranged attacks, stealth, thief skills, balance, and escape artist, all in addition to hitting things really hard; whereas a str character can hit things really hard, and that's it. A dex char is a "great all-rounder" in that he's instantly and cheaply good at practically everything, whereas a str char gets much less mileage out of the same investment.

Which is more demonstrative of bad game design than anything else.


I've allowed easy access to Dex to Damage effects in my games for many years now, and never noticed any imbalance.

They make for great all-rounder characters, but still can't touch Str characters for raw damage output. Better defense for worse offense has always seemed a fair trade to me.

Before the inevitable questioning "would you allow Str to Ref and AC as well?" the answer is yes, I have. It also didn't really set the world on fire.

I did the same, the game continued to turn just fine. Also freed up movement ala 5E. Also included NADs from 4E that can draw from multiple sources (it's not like there aren't feats for this anyway). I like the idea that the attacker does all the rolling.

A SAD martial is no worse than a Wizard who dumps all for int, or a druid who does the same for wis. In fact he's probably covering their butts until their basic design starts to break the game, with or without bans to a few easy shenanigans.

-----
And honestly if someone wants to PAO into something silly? Go for it. It's not like the bad guys can't. And for every action there is a reaction. I've run games with players who are playing 32nd-level epic-dragon wizards and killed one with an ubercharger in 1 round. Players will make mistakes and leave themselves open be they gods or mortals. Heck even running gods isn't that bad, they'll get the shenanigans out of their system fairly fast and then it just turns into a game of godly base-building.

[Kurald Galain]

Which is more demonstrative of bad game design than anything else.
Yep.

And funnily, people still want houserules that make it worse. Because after getting great armor class, reflex saves, initiative, ranged attacks, stealth, thief skills, balance, and escape artist, it's just sooo unfair if a dex-based character can't also hit things really hard.

[False God]

Yep.

And funnily, people still want houserules that make it worse. Because after getting great armor class, reflex saves, initiative, ranged attacks, stealth, thief skills, balance, and escape artist, it's just sooo unfair if a dex-based character can't also hit things really hard.

Personally, I find allowing dex to damage makes things better. Well, maybe "better" is the wrong word, but at least it has such a minimal impact as to not concern me in the slightest.

Archers feel more "archer-y", assassins feel more "assassin-y", people who want to play Legolas or Drizz't(sp) can get their jam on. People are happy and the impact on the game mechanically is nil.

[Quertus]

Yes, that's what it means when people say Dex is the God Stat. A dex character has great armor class, reflex saves, initiative, ranged attacks, stealth, thief skills, balance, and escape artist, all in addition to hitting things really hard; whereas a str character can hit things really hard, and that's it. A dex char is a "great all-rounder" in that he's instantly and cheaply good at practically everything, whereas a str char gets much less mileage out of the same investment.

There's a bit of "degrees" not being accounted for here.

Take two Fighters. Give one 18 Strength, 8 Dex. Give the other 8 Strength, 18 Dex.

The first Fighter can wear Mechanus Plate for… 9 AC? The second can wear… a Chain shirt for 4. So, same AC. More cost for the Mechanus Plate, meaning that Dex Fighter has the advantage early game, and different touch vs flat-footed AC (depends on the campaign, and how often the GM likes to attack with Shadows, touch-AC-targeting casters, or from surprise as to which has the advantage there).

A 5-point difference on balance, swim, and Climb isn't nothing, but…

At 4th level, if Human, they can have… 6 feats (before flaws). With Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (Lance), Weapon Specialization (Lance), Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and a +1 Lance, the Strength Fighter is looking at… 3d8+21 at +11 attack. (That's just simple core feats - doubtless a proper übercharger build would do more)

Even with a mighty bow, their ranged attacks aren't looking so hot, however. 1d8+4 at +4 attack (+0 if mounted and mount is double-moving, -4 if mount is running).

So, what's the Dex Fighter look like in comparison (I don't want to use what my ignorance of a proper Dex Fighter build would be taken as a strawman opponent here)? I'm guessing that it will have drastically lower melee DPS, and actually similar ranged DPS (better to hit, worse damage).

Definite potential advantages in initiative, early advantage in AC to the Dex Fighter.

Advantages in carrying capacity (somewhat mitigated by heavy armor) survivability against Shadows, and I'm guessing DPS to the Strength Fighter.

Now, if you're talking about the Fighter vs the Rogue, well, that's like comparing the Samurai to the Cleric - it's apples and oranges of rather unequally balanced chassis.

[Kurald Galain]

At 4th level, if Human, they can have… 6 feats (before flaws). With Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (Lance), Weapon Specialization (Lance), Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and a +1 Lance, the Strength Fighter is looking at… 3d8+21 at +11 attack. (That's just simple core feats - doubtless a proper übercharger build would do more)
What's preventing a dex fighter from taking any of those feats?

Bear in mind is that the context here is that people want dex-characters to get dex-to-damage for free.

[Xervous]

Been a while since I last GMed for 3.5e. Were I to start up a game now...

Early access (ur priest as an example) or level inappropriate effects (shivering touch, negative levels before 7).

Enhancement bonuses. Gone is the Christmas tree of +4 headbands, +2 cloak, the flavorless +3 sword and castings of greater magic weapon or vestments. The PCs can advance their ability scores over the levels in a continuation of point buy. Most spells and effects that provide little beyond temporary numeric pluses are banned. Most stackable numeric effects are generally no longer stackable This is all done in the interest of reducing needless bookkeeping when I’m perfectly capable of devising rules legal statblocks for the foes for a given numeric range.

Aside from the typical problematic, over the top classes there aren’t many class bans. I will however ban concepts that are inappropriate for the expected style and competency of play. Unsurprisingly this is effectively a soft ban on fighter 12 and similar as the game is simply not in BMX territory anymore. Though if I hand out a wealth of feats along with a bunch of changes made to typical trap options fighter simply becomes moot.

Some of the excessive components that feed into Uber charging (and other arbitrary damage attack routines) will be banned, leap attack, berserker (for multiple reasons, if we wanted random deaths we could play WH and pop out warp demons on bad rolls), and valorous weapons. In the absence of mass stackable to hit bonuses doing an all in on power attack won’t always be a no brainer.

There’s plenty more changes I could dwell on but that’s straying away from the topic of bans.

key two ability scores to each save, make everyone MAD, buff heavy armor via some interaction with STR, revise saving throw progressions to be a consistent gap rather than a broadening one... ability score differences are going to drive the applied values apart over time anyways.

Expanding on the typical point buy, a 20 would be valued at (24), a 22 at (34) and so on. An escalating number of point buy currency would be doled out at each level for improvement. Unspent carried over to the next level up of course. When the decision is between getting +1.5 damage, +1 to hit, (armor benefit) by going 22->24 STR; and spending that (12) to bring three 8s up to 14s the ability scores will see more variation beyond a functioning as a simple extension of level based linear progression.



Oh and kender, absolute must to ban kender. Cat girls too.

[Darg]

Because I got sick of reading people suggesting it for every dex character, even when they're not drow. I generally do abolish racial and alignment restrictions unless they have a good reason, and this one doesn't, but at that point it's effectively mandatory. The LA only matters if you're requiring not just full drow, but also prohibiting no-LA lesser drow and half-drow.

Wow, I forgot the variant lesser races even existed. I can see it being strong in combat for that. Though, all the story and roleplay negatives being drow has might overshadow it. I use my own variant for LA that works well enough. Although, I find it tough to say that half drow can be considered drow as it's a racial ACF rather than a special ability with a racial requirement.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that giving dex to damage shouldn't be so easy to gain either, but I really enjoyed my drow fighter/rogue/shadowdancer.

I should note that it works just like sudden strike, so it shouldn't be too difficult to teach players how it differs from sneak attack. The only difference is that it doesn't have the flanking trigger.

[Telonius]

Dust of Sneezing and Choking
Vorpal weapons
Natural Spell
Spells: Wind Wall, Contingency, Knock
Nightsticks (You can have one, not more than that)

I really want to ban Shapechange and Polymorph Any Object, just for being so easily abuse-able; but at the same time they're so iconic. Haven't figured out how to strike the balance there.

Not so much "banned" (as in, I've never had anybody ask to take them) but removed: multiclass penalties and favored class.

[Xervous]

Natural Spell

Forgot to list that one. If something is an auto pick it might be better off baseline, or in the case of natural spell simply just banned for eroding tradeoffs inherent to the powerhouse that Druid is.

[RNightstalker]

Weren't most of the iconic NPCs from the designers' games played in previous editions before magic items had prices?

Edit: returning to realistic weapon carrying for a bit, yeah turns out Shad went and back-scabbarded a longbow too. Tie a nail on tight and you can hang it off a baldric or belt just fine. So longbows and spears can be carried that way too, but I'm still saying it precludes a backpack, as that would hold the shaft either too far or too in-line with your legs.

My dad had some 1st edition books and those all had prices for magic items in them.
Most of my characters go to the Quiver of Ehlonna for carrying weapons. The compartment that can fit spears? Hello longbow and greatsword storage.


I would be totally down with that! Start a thread!

I should have one up by the end of the day.



2) anything you use can be used against you.

My world has monsters, but the main plots are driven by power games between powerful actors. Those bosses are npcs built with full pc optimization, with full pc gear. They get to be as cool as the pcs, because a hero is only as good as his opponent, and a world populated by morons is not treated with respect.
So, every build trick that the players can use, npc bosses can use too, and viceversa.


It's amazing how people aren't happy campers when they get a dose of their own medicine...I often do the same things.

[Learn34]

The reason I'm this open is because as a player, I like more options than less. Therefore I want to give my players the same enjoyment! More options are always better than less.

This. I'll ban infinite wish traps and the like, but that's more because at that point the character's would either win the game, or I'd just look up some other CO method to beat that. So it's less "X is banned" and more "I can and will throw your own build back at you with 5 levels stacked on top".

[Feldar]

Fizban's ban of natural spell is interesting. For my next game I'm treating that feat as a +4 level metamagic feat and limiting any reduction of metamagic costs to a total of -1 per spell. To me this feels a little more appropriate -- a high level druid should be able to cast some spells in animal form.

I thought the tibbit was interesting, but I doubt I would ever let someone run one unless it was a rogue-oriented campaign. On the other hand, a tibbit would make a great antagonist for the party!

I don't have a lot of outright banned stuff for my upcoming high level 3.5 Greyhawk game (not even persistent spell -- I just changed it to an epic feat), but I do have a pretty long list of "this is the way it works" errata. I will definitely be borrowing some of the bits from Fizban's list.

I have blanket banned:


Any 3.0 material that hasn't been updated and isn't specifically allowed (such as the non-magical gear list of Arms and Equipment Guide).
Any third-party (including homebrew) material
Anything that is not applicable to Greyhawk (reference to a realms deity? By default it's out but we can work on something if only small adjustments are needed [if the adjustments are deity-related, there must be an equivalent deity that does not require any changes]. Warforged? Out.)


For lower level games I ban table talk during combat (rules questions allowed, tactical questions not) unless the party has a telepathic bond up. This is actually one problem that the high-level game solves!

I am still looking into shapechange, polymorph any object, and their ilk, but if the party wizard wants to turn someone into a newt I'm good with it. My gut for the difficulty with these spells tells me it's the transformation giving supernatural and spell-like abilities that is the problem, but frankly I don't know how to fix it without gutting the entire idea of shape changing.

[Kurald Galain]

Anything that is not applicable to Greyhawk (reference to a realms deity? By default it's out but we can work on something if only small adjustments are needed [if the adjustments are deity-related, there must be an equivalent deity that does not require any changes]. Warforged? Out.)
That's another good one. I've had players who assume that Dark Sun's sorcerer kings and Eberron's dragonmarks are automatically valid in the Forgotten Realms, but hint: they're not.

(at least not automatically; if an equivalent can be found, we can discuss it)

[False God]

Fizban's ban of natural spell is interesting. For my next game I'm treating that feat as a +4 level metamagic feat and limiting any reduction of metamagic costs to a total of -1 per spell. To me this feels a little more appropriate -- a high level druid should be able to cast some spells in animal form.

The Druid could on the other hand, take Still and Silent spell, for a +2 total increase AND get the side-benefits that those feats provide (like making whatever you're casting much harder to counterspell via being unable to identify it).

Personally, I'd run it as Wild Speech (letting you talk while in animal form, also avoiding the "this character doesn't speak the common tongue" issue) and let Still Spell cover the somatic component. They can take Silent Spell if they want those effects. It's a +1 reduction compared to a wizard, but there are innumerable options to eliminate a +1 metamagic cost anyway.

By the time they're about level 10, the difference will be almost unnoticeable.

[Telonius]

I am still looking into shapechange, polymorph any object, and their ilk, but if the party wizard wants to turn someone into a newt I'm good with it. My gut for the difficulty with these spells tells me it's the transformation giving supernatural and spell-like abilities that is the problem, but frankly I don't know how to fix it without gutting the entire idea of shape changing.

That's basically where I'm at. Turning somebody into a newt is Baleful Polymorph's thing, and I don't think that spell has anything particularly wrong with it. As far as I can see, the point of Shapechange is so that your Wizard can re-enact the Merlin/Madam Mim duel from the Disney movie. It's awesome, it's something that high-level Wizards ought to be able to do ... but if it's something you do on a regular basis, you versus whatever you're facing, it's game-breakingly overpowered.

Maybe turn that effect into a magical ritual (designed for duels, each combatants provide a 9th-level slot)?

Polymorph Any Object's issue isn't really with Su and Sp abilities, since it doesn't grant those. It's stacking instances of it to transform yourself into a higher-Int version of yourself.

[Feldar]

My dad had some 1st edition books and those all had prices for magic items in them.

Sure, make me feel old.


There's a soft ban/gentlemans agreement when it comes to what people carry at my table, the short version is: I won't demand carrying capacity minutiae rules as long as the party makes a reasonable amount of effort to stow and carry items. Long story short, Mules and a cart are invaluable with a simple hireling to tend it at low levels until a bag of holding or similar extra-dimensional spaces are acquired.
I love it when players store everything in extra dimensional spaces, but overall I'm good with this in general. If weight becomes an issue I look at the gear list and make an approximation.

In my current game, the players are actively seeking as many storage devices as they can get (the party only has three) but curiously no one is willing to sell one. One of the players asked why and I just asked if he would sell his. He just shut up.


I like storage items, they're a classic part of the game, but in order for storage items to matter, non-magical storage has to matter. The fact that spellcasters (and many "dex rogues") tend to have less strength and thus have trouble carrying even basic supplies without losing speed (particularly if they wear armor), and thus are desperate for 2,000gp+ magical storage items, is in fact a balancing factor.

100% agree. That being said, I periodically review sheets and ask questions about where stuff is stored, trying to keep those questions out of combat unless it is a serious issue.

My main issue with D&D is that so much depends on the GM setting limits to keep things challenging (but not too hard) and too many of those limits involve a need for bookkeeping.

[RNightstalker]

Sure, make me feel old.


I apologize if you felt that a slight lol. "I'm not old, just older" myself.

[Feldar]

I apologize if you felt that a slight lol. "I'm not old, just older" myself.

LOL

Last night I found my Basic book. You know, the red paperback one.

[Biggus]

Fizban's ban of natural spell is interesting. For my next game I'm treating that feat as a +4 level metamagic feat

I've been treating it as a +1 level metamagic feat for a while now, it's been working pretty well.


Dust of Sneezing and Choking


Oh yeah, that too.

@OP: that reminds me, there's a list here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?124216-The-Test-of-Spite-3-51) of things that were banned in a game on here, it's probably the most thorough list of overpowered (and in a couple of cases underpowered) material I've seen.

[Feldar]

I've been treating it as a +1 level metamagic feat for a while now, it's been working pretty well.



Oh yeah, that too.

@OP: that reminds me, there's a list here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?124216-The-Test-of-Spite-3-51) of things that were banned in a game on here, it's probably the most thorough list of overpowered (and in a couple of cases underpowered) material I've seen.

Yeah, I can't get behind +1 LA for Natural Spell given how broken druids really are. I might go to +2 though. It's always easier to start with a tight limit and gradually ease up on it than it is to implement a tighter limit though.

For home game use, I have zero intention of banning underpowered. I might fix it though.

[Feldar]

Polymorph Any Object's issue isn't really with Su and Sp abilities, since it doesn't grant those. It's stacking instances of it to transform yourself into a higher-Int version of yourself.

Here's what I've come up with so far:

When you are transformed, you first return to your base form for a brief period of time. Any advantage or disadvantage not carried in your base form cannot persist into a new form.

I can't think of anything better yet.

[False God]

Here's what I've come up with so far:

When you are transformed, you first return to your base form for a brief period of time. Any advantage or disadvantage not carried in your base form cannot persist into a new form.

I can't think of anything better yet.

But, what problem are you trying to fix, for your table?

IE: I don't have many houserules because the people I play with are mostly DMs, and reasonable people/players. There's no need because they check themselves before they wreck the game. Even the ones who aren't DMs self-regulate because they understand that doing X, Y or Z can ruin the game. Because we've explained it. Because they've experienced it. Because they've tried it and saw how it affected everyone negatively.

So for me, there's no problem to solve. Shapechange or PAO doesn't need to be fixed because the players moderate their usage. Even when we all decide to go to Ludicrous Speed we accept that it's silly for a reason and roll with the silliness.

If your concern is that the guy playing the 20th-level wizard is going to perma-change themselves into a massively intelligent creature and break the game...why not just tell him "Don't do that, that's not the kind of game we want to run."?

Spells don't break the game. People do. If your people can can control themselves because they prefer "Everyone having a good time." to "breaking the game over their knees", what problem do your houserules seek to address?

[Troacctid]

If your concern is that the guy playing the 20th-level wizard is going to perma-change themselves into a massively intelligent creature and break the game...why not just tell him "Don't do that, that's not the kind of game we want to run."?
So...in other words, ban it?

[False God]

So...in other words, ban it?

No. Not at all. I'm not sure how you can read "This person is breaking the game on purpose on ruining everyone's fun." and take it as "Take away everyone's toys."

Don't play with people who break the game. Give them fair warning, Session Zero, however you want to handle it. Then follow through with removing them from the game when they ignore it.

The rest of the table doesn't need to be punished for that one guy who is clearly a jerk.

[Troacctid]

No. Not at all. I'm not sure how you can read "This person is breaking the game on purpose on ruining everyone's fun." and take it as "Take away everyone's toys."

Don't play with people who break the game. Give them fair warning, Session Zero, however you want to handle it. Then follow through with removing them from the game when they ignore it.

The rest of the table doesn't need to be punished for that one guy who is clearly a jerk.
Telling your players that they shouldn't use a particular spell because it's not the kind of game you want to run (and then removing them from the game if they use it)...is a ban. Similarly, telling them they should limit themselves to using some functions of the spell but not all of them (and then removing them from the game if they don't)...is a nerf. They're the exact same thing, just delivered more passive-aggressively.

[Kurald Galain]

No. Not at all. I'm not sure how you can read "This person is breaking the game on purpose on ruining everyone's fun." and take it as "Take away everyone's toys."

Don't play with people who break the game. Give them fair warning, Session Zero, however you want to handle it. Then follow through with removing them from the game when they ignore it.

The rest of the table doesn't need to be punished for that one guy who is clearly a jerk.

Ok, so the spell is not forbidden. The spell is only prohibited, outlawed, and illegal. Very different thing! :smallamused:

[Nifft]

No. Not at all. I'm not sure how you can read "This person is breaking the game on purpose on ruining everyone's fun." and take it as "Take away everyone's toys."

Don't play with people who break the game. Give them fair warning, Session Zero, however you want to handle it. Then follow through with removing them from the game when they ignore it.

The rest of the table doesn't need to be punished for that one guy who is clearly a jerk.

A player following some of the frequent game-breaking advice freely (and loudly) available in this same subforum might not be a jerk. It's quite possible to break D&D just by accident while trying to roleplay in good faith, and the sheer quantity of misguidance freely (and loudly) available to help steer a naive player in that direction should not be discounted.

You're talking like you prefer attacking a person for violating your secret, invisible rules rather than communicating your rules clearly beforehand.

[Feldar]

The rest of the table doesn't need to be punished for that one guy who is clearly a jerk.

Well, aside from the fact that you seem to be pointedly objecting to a proposal that allows the rest of the table to keep using the spell as intended without punishing them, I'll point the question back at you -- why are you opposed to a fix that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the spell or the intended usage but does lay out clearly that abuse won't be allowed?

With respects to your "session 0" fascination, players come and go for various reasons, characters die and need to be replaced, and sometimes folks want to work on characters when the GM sleeps. My session 0 is in writing so it can be referenced whenever the player wants.

[Vault756]

Night Sticks are limited to 1 per person.

Arcane Swordsage is banned. That variant exists in a rules grey area and isn't remotely close to balanced.

Artificer, craft feats, and the craft skill are all soft banned. Which is to say I'd allow them but my players need to keep me informed every step of the way if they intend to use any of these things as what items I have given them access to has been carefully curated.

In the same vein there are also a lot of items my players can't gain access to. Things like manuals that increase stats, any combined items. This isn't to say that they're really banned just that I want to be careful what I allow them to have.

Things you summon can't cast spells of a higher level than you can cast. You want to summon a Greenbound Wolf at level 1? Sure, but it can't use it's 5th level spell as a supernatural ability until you're able to cast 5th level spells.

While not really a ban per se, I also limit multi-classing. Any character can have at most 3 classes. I can't think of any PrC that requires more than 2 other classes to get into so this means you can still play any PrC you want. What this does is just cuts down on 1 level dips into other classes for stuff.

[Endless Rain]

Prepared casting, in general. Any vancian prepared casting class is converted into a Sorcerer-style caster. This also covers spell-preparation options in other non-vancian magic systems, like a couple options in SoP.

Most sources of Temporary Talents in Spheres of Power/Might aren't allowed, unless they're restricted to a single sphere and have a short enough duration.

Epic rules, in general. I have my own Epic rules that are based off the Gestalt rules to keep the math manageable.

Stuff that's higher-tech than anything available to the characters is banned, mostly items such as PF Advanced Firearms. The Android player race and some options in Starfinder and my 3pp books are banned are banned on these grounds too.

Any option involving cannibalism, sexual content, or torture is banned or reworked to no longer involve those topics because either I or at least one of my players is uncomfortable with it.

Anything that would contact a deity does not work, but that's partially my players' fault since they killed all their gods. (But any other Divine Magic or otherwise deity-related option is reflavored to not rely on the now-dead gods.)

Some stuff involving souls or the afterlife isn't allowed because souls in my setting work differently than souls in RAW D&Dland.

Hero Points from the PF Advanced Player's Guide and Action Points from Eberron aren't used, so stuff involving them is usually on the banlist.

+X items usually aren't allowed because I use Automatic Bonus Progression.

Anything that would alter the past isn't allowed. Time travel in my setting works like Avengers: Endgame, not Back to the Future.

Apart from this, I'm generally a very permissive GM, but I also have a very large collection across both 3.5 and PF, and a few things are kind of broken. I do try to nerf the broken stuff instead of banning it, if possible.

Wish, Limited Wish, and Miracle can only be used for spell duplication.

Humans and a few other races don't get a free bonus feat at 1st level, as I already give all characters a free feat and don't want to give them a second. A Human's bonus feat can still be traded out for alternate racial traits.

Golems don't have Magic Immunity.

Surge, Amazing Initiative, Force of Will, Wild Arcana, and Inspired Spell from Mythic Adventures were all nerfed to varying degrees, especially the latter two.

Favored class options that give the character an extra spell known per class level are nerfed into fractional spells known per level.

Paragon Surge is nerfed to only selecting Combat Feats because it's too broken otherwise.

USoP's Hedgewitch gets combat feats from the Spiritualism tradition instead of magic talents.

USoP Incantations are restricted by caster level and sphere requirements, like Rituals. Secondary casters only need the sphere requirements.

I do NOT ban setting-specific material that can be reflavored to fit in my setting, such as Warforged and Dragonmarks. I also allow converted 3.0, 3.5, Starfinder, and other d20 system content in my Pathfinder games, and allow players to ignore most special prerequisites, homeland, patron deity, and gender prerequisites, codes of conduct, and other flavor-only prerequisites. Alignment is reworked to use the Radiant and Shadow option from Pathfinder Unchained, so characters can have a mechanical alignment for charop purposes without it being affected by their actual morality. (Characters start at True Neutral and change alignment if they take something with an alignment prerequisite.) I also allow characters to choose almost any Alternate Racial Traits for their race, allow monster races, and allow a lot of character options from Unearthed Arcana.

[King of Nowhere]

Telling your players that they shouldn't use a particular spell because it's not the kind of game you want to run (and then removing them from the game if they use it)...is a ban. Similarly, telling them they should limit themselves to using some functions of the spell but not all of them (and then removing them from the game if they don't)...is a nerf. They're the exact same thing, just delivered more passive-aggressively.

+1
i feel a straight out ban is the same as "please don't", but more honest


A player following some of the frequent game-breaking advice freely (and loudly) available in this same subforum might not be a jerk. It's quite possible to break D&D just by accident while trying to roleplay in good faith, and the sheer quantity of misguidance freely (and loudly) available to help steer a naive player in that direction should not be discounted.

+1 on that too.
not all players are good with mechanics. some of my players aren't great, and they ask guidance on forums. and then the forum returns them broken options, and they don't really realize how broken they are. So telling them "you can't use this thing" helps them much better than setting an ill defined optimization level that they are not able to gauge accurately (this goes hand in hand with supervising their build and giving them advice).

heck, one of those players of mine wanted to use an antropomorphic bat for a druid after reading the suggestion on a forum. I had to explain him how broken a free +6 to a casting stat really is. And then nerf it to +2 before letting him play the thing.

[Rynjin]

What's preventing a dex fighter from taking any of those feats?

Bear in mind is that the context here is that people want dex-characters to get dex-to-damage for free.

No, the context here is "easy access", which is specifically what I said, not "free". I allow the use of the Feat Deadly Agility, which requires Weapon Finesse and BaB 1; so a two Feat chain for universal Dex to Damage, rather than the limited versions available from 1st party material (Dervish Dance and Fencing Grace).

[Quertus]

What's preventing a dex fighter from taking any of those feats?

Bear in mind is that the context here is that people want dex-characters to get dex-to-damage for free.


No, the context here is "easy access", which is specifically what I said, not "free". I allow the use of the Feat Deadly Agility, which requires Weapon Finesse and BaB 1; so a two Feat chain for universal Dex to Damage, rather than the limited versions available from 1st party material (Dervish Dance and Fencing Grace).

So, this particular Dex Fighter could forgo… improved initiative and weapon specialization, use a light Lance, and deal about 5 damage less.

Fair enough.


Oh and kender, absolute must to ban kender. Cat girls too.

I prefer to ban those who would play Kender :smallwink:

Why the hate for cat girls?


My dad had some 1st edition books and those all had prices for magic items in them.

Yes, but those were the prices you could expect to *sell* your items for (if you wanted to retire, and open a tavern or in case your kingdom fell on hard times, and you needed cash quick to raise an army, or keep your people fed), not any expectation that you could *buy* them (at least not with any reliability).


My main issue with D&D is that so much depends on the GM setting limits to keep things challenging (but not too hard) and too many of those limits involve a need for bookkeeping.

Depends? No, you could simply run the game the way I do: do none of that, and rely on and empower the players to balance to the table. That, and figure out what they're going to do if they encounter something completely beyond their capabilities… or how they're going to minimize the chances of that happening.

CaS vs CaW.

[Fizban]

Though, all the story and roleplay negatives being drow has might overshadow it.
That'll be another unstated one: though shalt not play a designated bad guy race. If a player wants to play a drow, then the world will have to consider drow acceptable enough that they can be part of the party. There's room for a whole session zero discussion of what races should exist in the world, what roles they play, and how they are viewed.

Speaking of which- Orcs for LA +0 with +4 Strength? No.

Thanks for the explanation. I agree that giving dex to damage shouldn't be so easy to gain either, but I really enjoyed my drow fighter/rogue/shadowdancer.

I should note that it works just like sudden strike, so it shouldn't be too difficult to teach players how it differs from sneak attack. The only difference is that it doesn't have the flanking trigger.
Ah, but that presumes said players can switch quickly between thinking of sneak attack and sudden strike.


Dust of Sneezing and Choking
Oddly enough, even though I did get through the whole DMG, I don't have this one listed. Maybe I was thinking of certain uber-no-save spells justifying it at the time?

I really want to ban Shapechange and Polymorph Any Object, just for being so easily abuse-able; but at the same time they're so iconic. Haven't figured out how to strike the balance there.
My first post in the thread has what I think should suffice for PaO. If you want more in the way of objects into creatures, add another line for "may transform an object into a creature from the Summon X list."

It's a brute force method, but you could make an allowed list for Shapechange- it sounds like a lot of work, but the biggest hurdle is just getting yourself to do it. Once you get started, writing a new spell list or skimming monster manuals for stuff you'll allow isn't hard, because you can probably respond to each individual items as soon as you think about it. Then, if you don't remove the ability to change again within the spell, make it reduce the duration each time so there's an effective limit.

My dad had some 1st edition books and those all had prices for magic items in them.
Huh. First time I've ever heard that. One of these days I should really get my hands on those so I can do the research myself. Edit: and Quertus with the clarification.

Most of my characters go to the Quiver of Ehlonna for carrying weapons. The compartment that can fit spears? Hello longbow and greatsword storage.
I suppose I should allow greatswords in there, Unless the weight of the sword bouncing around is enough for the uncovered edge to cut the quiver, but as an 1,800gp magic item for weapons, it ought to be tough enough. And since sharpening isn't a thing, grinding the edge all day shouldn't be a problem either.


Fizban's ban of natural spell is interesting. For my next game I'm treating that feat as a +4 level metamagic feat and limiting any reduction of metamagic costs to a total of -1 per spell. To me this feels a little more appropriate -- a high level druid should be able to cast some spells in animal form.
Wait, did I ban Natural Spell? *Ctr+F's doc*. No, that wasn't me, I just threw a ton of shade at it for being part of 3.5's failed updates. Though I probably should ban it just for consistency (as in, the difference between Druids with and without is just too huge). I wouldn't go quite as far as +4, a +3 or +2 seems more in line when the realm of +4 is flat doubling your spell or reducing it to a free action. Or as noted below, Still+Silent are two feats for total +2.

One of the major cited problems is turning into a bird and then never coming down- this can be fixed with a duration nerf to Wild Shape itself, or ruling that birds don't have appendages suitable for flailing to cast a Natural Spell (sure their feet are very dexterous, but they're on the wrong half for someone who's normally a humanoid).

I thought the tibbit was interesting, but I doubt I would ever let someone run one unless it was a rogue-oriented campaign. On the other hand, a tibbit would make a great antagonist for the party!
They annoy me on general principle. A Hengeyokai on the other hand. . .

I have blanket banned:


Any 3.0 material that hasn't been updated and isn't specifically allowed (such as the non-magical gear list of Arms and Equipment Guide).
Any third-party (including homebrew) material
Anything that is not applicable to Greyhawk (reference to a realms deity? By default it's out but we can work on something if only small adjustments are needed [if the adjustments are deity-related, there must be an equivalent deity that does not require any changes]. Warforged? Out.)

Meanwhile, if anything I would use the opposite phrasing: I will blanket look at anything from any source, if it means the players are actually interested in the game mechanics and found something cool they want. The amount of effort it takes for me to fix something is so much less than the effort required to shove builds in front of someone's face until they bite.

For lower level games I ban table talk during combat (rules questions allowed, tactical questions not) unless the party has a telepathic bond up. This is actually one problem that the high-level game solves!
I couldn't go that far simply because it would mean half the table is wasting half of their actions. I did try to use a timer to keep game speed up, but it was only moderately effective. Would have worked better with a digital timer I could hit every turn, rather than an hourglass which was still half-full on the fast players' turns.


100% agree. That being said, I periodically review sheets and ask questions about where stuff is stored, trying to keep those questions out of combat unless it is a serious issue.
My main issue with D&D is that so much depends on the GM setting limits to keep things challenging (but not too hard) and too many of those limits involve a need for bookkeeping.
I had one game with an amateur spreadsheet including every piece of loot they found, whether it had been sold or kept, every piece of gear on each character, and also the consumable/party pool. In later games I didn't go that far, but leaving all that stuff up to the players means stuff just gets lost if you don't keep your own record. I had everyone put their sheets online so I could check them at liesure (and they could print them rather than having a months old pencil+eraser mess, and no excuse for losing them).

Ok, so the spell is not forbidden. The spell is only prohibited, outlawed, and illegal. Very different thing! :smallamused:
This is why I've gone all the way down to Elite/Specialized array only. Having to tell a player that I frown upon a starting 18 in point buy but am not explicitly banning them just puts all the bad feels on them, not cool.

Related- Any Int-boosting LA +0 race will be reviewed, and banned unless I feel it has sufficient penalty. Which probably means I will still end up allowing Grey Elf because they have both Str and Con penalties, but only because I'm also allowing Spellscale with it's Cha/Con setup.

A player following some of the frequent game-breaking advice freely (and loudly) available in this same subforum might not be a jerk. It's quite possible to break D&D just by accident while trying to roleplay in good faith, and the sheer quantity of misguidance freely (and loudly) available to help steer a naive player in that direction should not be discounted.
And this is why I get mad with so many character advice and balance threads. The person who needs to ask advice by definition won't know how to ask for it to be matched to their table, or the ability to convey all the information needed to describe that table, and jumping straight to max-op has a real chance of messing up someone else's game.

Things you summon can't cast spells of a higher level than you can cast. You want to summon a Greenbound Wolf at level 1? Sure, but it can't use it's 5th level spell as a supernatural ability until you're able to cast 5th level spells.
I have a similar change to the general summoning rules (to go with my tweaked lists), where anything that's not damage ends with the spell. Poison, disease, negative levels, spell durations, supernatural ability durations, whatever. And an extra line regarding "transportation abilities" that I included just so I could put the Blue Slaad on there for better variety and progression.

As for Greenbound and Rashemi Elemental- I'd have to take a long look at them. The problem with summoning is that even though I had a dedicated summoner in game, I still never got a very good read on how appropriate and effective summoning was, and it's a lot harder to gauge on paper than normal spells.

Heck, I've even noted that Augment Summoning is the same benefits as rage with no drawbacks, on everything you summon, when you can't even get Rage 1/day with a feat. Even moreso than what the expected minimum and allowed buff ceiling is for players, the answers to those for summons are murky.

+1 on that too.
not all players are good with mechanics. some of my players aren't great, and they ask guidance on forums. and then the forum returns them broken options, and they don't really realize how broken they are. So telling them "you can't use this thing" helps them much better than setting an ill defined optimization level that they are not able to gauge accurately (this goes hand in hand with supervising their build and giving them advice).
Yup- in addition to giving you immediate notice if a player recognizes and is displeased with anything on the list, it also allows someone asking the internet to immediately check the list and see if there are any matches, as long as you've been thorough enough.

I suppose that means I should add a note about Anthropomorphic stuff, or maybe just most of Savage Species in general. The feats are mostly fine-ish and the monstery-PrCs are cool but not always appropriate for PCs, and a lot of the rest is either in other books already or just no.

[rrwoods]

My DM’s current bans are:
Leadership
Incantatrix
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
Polymorph and its ilk (there’s a specific list but I don’t remember it at the moment)

He’s keen on the “glitterdust only blinds for 1 round” nerf but isn’t going to change it midgame. Might do it if he runs another one though.

[One Step Two]

He’s keen on the “glitterdust only blinds for 1 round” nerf but isn’t going to change it midgame. Might do it if he runs another one though.

This got me thinking, I might adopt the idea of Glitterdusts' blind requiring a move action to wipe the dust from their eyes to remove the blind effect only. Turn it into a soft-lock on action that still has a nice little oomph for a second level spell, but not out-right save or suck.

Also, wow how did I ever forget that Blindness/Deafness is permanent duration!? Makes Glitterdust look almost tame. Almost.

As for stats and generation, I've put a soft ban on rolling stats now that I think about it. I am generous with a 34 pointbuy, and if the players feel they want to have the sensation of rolling dice, then I have them as a group rolling best 3 of 4d6, and sticking it all into a 6x6 grid and picking out 2 or 3 different arrays of stats they can use. I am well aware that MAD and SAD are problematic, but I refuse to extend the issue by letting someone in the party have a bigger divide in their stats than the others.

[Fizban]

Also, wow how did I ever forget that Blindness/Deafness is permanent duration!? Makes Glitterdust look almost tame. Almost.
Blindness/Deafness is also a single target Necromancy spell (ignored by non-living creatures) with a Fort save that allows SR (and doesn't even have an extra revealing effect). In terms of combat effect, Blindness on one creature for one combat with all standard resistances should be mostly fine (though with that range vs Ghoul Touch and Suggestion being 3rd, Blindness could still deserve a boot to 3rd). Permanent is a bit much, but it's also dismissable, so you can try to take the caster alive and force them to dismiss it. The bigger problem is that its removal spell is 3rd level, and there are no core dispel effects below 3rd either (with splats you can use a 2nd level dispel or Resurgence to remove it).

And also the bit where BoED decided that since Blindness/Deafness is lower level than Bestow Curse and already permament, Bestow Curse should make you both blind and deaf as a permanent curse. Which means Clerics have very little reason to cast their 3rd level version of Blindness/Deafness, which I feel was probably supposed to be the original level before someone went "oh hey wizards should do that, and easier," though I've no evidence for it.

[One Step Two]

Blindness/Deafness is also a single target Necromancy spell (ignored by non-living creatures) with a Fort save that allows SR (and doesn't even have an extra revealing effect). In terms of combat effect, Blindness on one creature for one combat with all standard resistances should be mostly fine (though with that range vs Ghoul Touch and Suggestion being 3rd, Blindness could still deserve a boot to 3rd). Permanent is a bit much, but it's also dismissable, so you can try to take the caster alive and force them to dismiss it. The bigger problem is that its removal spell is 3rd level, and there are no core dispel effects below 3rd either (with splats you can use a 2nd level dispel or Resurgence to remove it).

And also the bit where BoED decided that since Blindness/Deafness is lower level than Bestow Curse and already permament, Bestow Curse should make you both blind and deaf as a permanent curse. Which means Clerics have very little reason to cast their 3rd level version of Blindness/Deafness, which I feel was probably supposed to be the original level before someone went "oh hey wizards should do that, and easier," though I've no evidence for it.

Blindness/Deafness was my go-to comparison spell for glitterdust for the same status effect, it shows just how nuts the spells are in comparison. Single target vs Multiple alone makes them sharply different. Before we even get into the many reasons why using glitterdust is still better, for most fights you're looking to vanquish foes, permanent blindness isn't something you care about when even 3 round of blindness is all you need for tactical superiority to finish a fight. Yikes is all I can say.

[RNightstalker]

Anything that would contact a deity does not work, but that's partially my players' fault since they killed all their gods. (But any other Divine Magic or otherwise deity-related option is reflavored to not rely on the now-dead gods.)


I do NOT ban setting-specific material that can be reflavored to fit in my setting, such as Warforged and Dragonmarks. I also allow converted 3.0, 3.5, Starfinder, and other d20 system content in my Pathfinder games, and allow players to ignore most special prerequisites, homeland, patron deity, and gender prerequisites, codes of conduct, and other flavor-only prerequisites. Alignment is reworked to use the Radiant and Shadow option from Pathfinder Unchained, so characters can have a mechanical alignment for charop purposes without it being affected by their actual morality. (Characters start at True Neutral and change alignment if they take something with an alignment prerequisite.) I also allow characters to choose almost any Alternate Racial Traits for their race, allow monster races, and allow a lot of character options from Unearthed Arcana.

If all of their gods are dead, how is there ANY divine magic?

I do like redoing the flavor only things as it will create some more interesting combinations. But Warforged aren't setting-specific, they're in MMIII.


That'll be another unstated one: though shalt not play a designated bad guy race. If a player wants to play a drow, then the world will have to consider drow acceptable enough that they can be part of the party. There's room for a whole session zero discussion of what races should exist in the world, what roles they play, and how they are viewed.

Huh. First time I've ever heard that. One of these days I should really get my hands on those so I can do the research myself. Edit: and Quertus with the clarification.

I suppose I should allow greatswords in there, Unless the weight of the sword bouncing around is enough for the uncovered edge to cut the quiver, but as an 1,800gp magic item for weapons, it ought to be tough enough. And since sharpening isn't a thing, grinding the edge all day shouldn't be a problem either.

This is why I've gone all the way down to Elite/Specialized array only. Having to tell a player that I frown upon a starting 18 in point buy but am not explicitly banning them just puts all the bad feels on them, not cool.


Playing a bad-guy race can be interesting if done right
There are websites out there where you can gain access to said books, that I've been dinged for posting here before.
If you think about quivers, they're designed to hold a bunch of pointy things without breaking to begin with...



As for stats and generation, I've put a soft ban on rolling stats now that I think about it. I am generous with a 34 pointbuy, and if the players feel they want to have the sensation of rolling dice, then I have them as a group rolling best 3 of 4d6, and sticking it all into a 6x6 grid and picking out 2 or 3 different arrays of stats they can use. I am well aware that MAD and SAD are problematic, but I refuse to extend the issue by letting someone in the party have a bigger divide in their stats than the others.

I've adopted a d8+10 method for generating scores, roll 7, take the best six...I'm not too concerned with stats, minor thing to worry about and it makes most players, including me, feel better.

[Duff]

(drown healing, for example).

That which is dead cannot die

[One Step Two]

That which is dead cannot die

Rule change: You may return to 0 HP through drowning if you worship the Drowned god.

[Nifft]

And this is why I get mad with so many character advice and balance threads. The person who needs to ask advice by definition won't know how to ask for it to be matched to their table, or the ability to convey all the information needed to describe that table, and jumping straight to max-op has a real chance of messing up someone else's game. At some point one wonders if the posters pushing bad-faith game-breakers at newbies are even trying to help.



Rule change: You may return to 0 HP through drowning if you worship the Drowned god.
Now this I can get behind.

[Feldar]

That'll be another unstated one: though shalt not play a designated bad guy race. If a player wants to play a drow, then the world will have to consider drow acceptable enough that they can be part of the party. There's room for a whole session zero discussion of what races should exist in the world, what roles they play, and how they are viewed.
I'm ok with characters playing bad guy races if they're ok with the cons


Huh. First time I've ever heard that. One of these days I should really get my hands on those so I can do the research myself. Edit: and Quertus with the clarification.

Half-Priced Books. They even have a web site!


Wait, did I ban Natural Spell? *Ctr+F's doc*. No, that wasn't me, I just threw a ton of shade at it for being part of 3.5's failed updates. Though I probably should ban it just for consistency (as in, the difference between Druids with and without is just too huge). I wouldn't go quite as far as +4, a +3 or +2 seems more in line when the realm of +4 is flat doubling your spell or reducing it to a free action. Or as noted below, Still+Silent are two feats for total +2.

One of the major cited problems is turning into a bird and then never coming down- this can be fixed with a duration nerf to Wild Shape itself, or ruling that birds don't have appendages suitable for flailing to cast a Natural Spell (sure their feet are very dexterous, but they're on the wrong half for someone who's normally a humanoid).
Sorry for the confusion there, to both you and the person who did list it as banned!

Re Natural Spell, keep in mind it's also three components -- Still Spell, Silent Spell (unless the druid is a bird perhaps), and Eschew Materials in quite a lot of cases. So, Natural Spell allows the druid character to replace three feats with a single feat AND cast spells in animal form.

I'm ok with putting some kind of time limit on animal form, but I would feel that limit should increase as the druid levels. And I'm ok with the bird -- obscuring mist can be placed to block visibility.


Meanwhile, if anything I would use the opposite phrasing: I will blanket look at anything from any source, if it means the players are actually interested in the game mechanics and found something cool they want. The amount of effort it takes for me to fix something is so much less than the effort required to shove builds in front of someone's face until they bite.
The document gives them a list of what is already approved for inclusion, and I'm willing to consider other material; at the same time, making it clear where I've drawn the line and why seems important. I drew this line because it's not Greyhawk workable, I drew this line because it was for an old mechanical system, yada.

I'm waiting for home brew that's not OP to be presented to me -- so far no player has brought me home brew that's not unbalanced.


I couldn't go that far simply because it would mean half the table is wasting half of their actions. I did try to use a timer to keep game speed up, but it was only moderately effective. Would have worked better with a digital timer I could hit every turn, rather than an hourglass which was still half-full on the fast players' turns.
Well, I've already warned them that since they'll start with access to true resurrection that I'm not going to be pulling any punches whatsoever.


My DM’s current bans are:
Leadership
I took cohorts away. Characters have enemies, followers are not generally fanatically loyal, and can be killed/interfered with/observed for information that can spoil the characters' plans. I'm good with characters having followers, and happy to kill followers if the characters are dumb enough to bring them into peril.



Incantatrix
Falls under non-Greyhawk material in my case.



Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
I made the veils subject to anti-magic field. Plus, NPCs can research spells too, the abilities of the prestige class are well known, and low-level mages are easily hired by high level folks, buffed with invisibility, and told to cast "this spell at this time".


My DM’s current bans are:
He’s keen on the “glitterdust only blinds for 1 round” nerf but isn’t going to change it midgame. Might do it if he runs another one though.
Glitterdust is very powerful for a second level spell, but that is mainly due to bad will saves in low level characters vs a tendency to optimize for high DC by characters. It doesn't always work. I'm ok with it as is (barely).

Something else that's seriously broken -- entangle and web. I errata them so that the DC to break the entanglement effect is the same as the save DC for the spell and it seems to work alright. They still work as a battlefield control and enemy actions are still spent. This has been very successful, and the players realize that the spells are just as scary unmodified against them as from them.

[Fizban]

I'm ok with characters playing bad guy races if they're ok with the cons
The problem is that if it's truly a designated bad guy race, the con is that the party (and the town guard, and. . ) kills them instead of recruiting them. Even if they started in disguise, that just generates inter-party strife unless the whole group agreed on it beforehand, and makes every town scene at least partially all about them, until the allied NPCs inevitably have to learn that this one is actually okay guys. In which case the con isn't much of a con, because the group agreed they want that race to be at least quasi-acceptable and/or be okay with having that character get a whole thing about becoming accepted.

And while "designated bad guy race" might sound bad, that lasts only until you've had multiple sessions grind to a halt with people arguing over whether they should be taking and/or executing and/or carrying prisoners. It sounds nice to say "hey, orcs/drow/whatever are people too," but unless it has been pre-arranged that the campaign is going to specifically involve that theme, all it does is clash with any adventure where you're supposed to kill those enemies. Which you can counter by making explicit all the unforgivable immediate-execution-worthy crimes they've done, but then it's squickier than a lot of people will want to deal with.

So when I say designated bad guy race, it includes an inherent no-PCs component. Designated bad guy race means kill on sight, do not suffer moral quandary, we're here to kill monsters and take their stuff.

Half-Price Books. They even have a web site!

Ah yes, but you see, my threshold of effort is staggeringly low when it's not unusually high.

Re Natural Spell, keep in mind it's also three components -- Still Spell, Silent Spell (unless the druid is a bird perhaps), and Eschew Materials in quite a lot of cases. So, Natural Spell allows the druid character to replace three feats with a single feat AND cast spells in animal form.
Bah, get one of the party members to tie some mistletoe to their fur or something, if they can't be bothered to carry it in their mouth. That's way more interesting anyway.

I'm waiting for home brew that's not OP to be presented to me -- so far no player has brought me home brew that's not unbalanced.
Fair. Two of my favorite homebrews turned out to just be too powerful for the table we ended up having (though if we'd used point buy like I said we should, that would have helped. . . but really the main problem was the DM being allergic to actual monsters)

[Quertus]

Bah, get one of the party members to tie some mistletoe to their fur or something, if they can't be bothered to carry it in their mouth. That's way more interesting anyway.

That is easy more interesting… the first time. The 20th character (or even the 5th)? That's just ruining something special.

Once it's a solved issue, I'd prefer they just take the feat.

[loky1109]

Nothing.
But I can prohibit anything, if I decide.

[Xervous]

I prefer to ban those who would play Kender :smallwink:

Why the hate for cat girls?


Lets just say I have a large enough sample size to trust that the cats attract problem players.

[InvisibleBison]

Re Natural Spell, keep in mind it's also three components -- Still Spell, Silent Spell (unless the druid is a bird perhaps), and Eschew Materials in quite a lot of cases. So, Natural Spell allows the druid character to replace three feats with a single feat AND cast spells in animal form.

This is just wrong. Natural Spell explicitly says that you still have to make gestures and noises to cast spells in animal form; it in no way mimic Still Spell or Silent Spell. And it doesn't mimic Eschew Materials, either. You still have to have a component/focus to cast a spell that requires one with Natural Spell; the feat just lets you use them if they've melded into your form.

[Feldar]

Lets just say I have a large enough sample size to trust that the cats attract problem players.

LOL


This is just wrong. Natural Spell explicitly says that you still have to make gestures and noises to cast spells in animal form; it in no way mimic Still Spell or Silent Spell. And it doesn't mimic Eschew Materials, either. You still have to have a component/focus to cast a spell that requires one with Natural Spell; the feat just lets you use them if they've melded into your form.
You are correct. Thanks for pointing out my oversight.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

That'll be another unstated one: though shalt not play a designated bad guy race. If a player wants to play a drow, then the world will have to consider drow acceptable enough that they can be part of the party. There's room for a whole session zero discussion of what races should exist in the world, what roles they play, and how they are viewed.

That's fair. If playing a race will make all the NPCs attack you, then the PCs probably shouldn't be playing that race for a typical campaign. (Could make for a fun stealth campaign, though, now that I think about it. Heroic members of traditionally evil races, that have to hide from society while also doing their best to protect it...)



Speaking of which- Orcs for LA +0 with +4 Strength? No.

This, though, I don't get. An extra +2 STR is nice, sure, but even if the character doesn't care about CHA at all, it's still balanced by the -2 to INT and WIS, which are important to any character for skills and Will saves. In the scheme of things, Humans' free feat with no drawbacks is much stronger (and it looks like the devs agreed with that analysis, since they released several subraces that are strict upgrades but still have LA +0, like Water Orcs and Frostblood Orcs, but you'll still almost never see those recommended in optimization handbooks over Human).

[Kurald Galain]

This, though, I don't get. An extra +2 STR is nice, sure, but even if the character doesn't care about CHA at all, it's still balanced by the -2 to INT and WIS,
That's because WOTC thought strength would be the God Stat. I'm not sure why they thought so (because dex was already the God Stat back in the TSR days, and also in variant RPGs like Alternity) but that's why racial strength boosts are overpriced.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

That's because WOTC thought strength would be the God Stat. I'm not sure why they thought so (because dex was already the God Stat back in the TSR days, and also in variant RPGs like Alternity) but that's why racial strength boosts are overpriced.

Yeah, I get why the as-written LAs and balance are off. I don't follow why an otherwise savvy forumite would think that they were still too low, though.

[Endless Rain]

If all of their gods are dead, how is there ANY divine magic?

In-character, it's reflavored as another type of arcane magic, it just happens to work exactly like divine magic so that I don't have to ban divine casting classes. (Also, Clerics of an ideal, philosophy, or force have been around since the beginning of 3e.)


I do like redoing the flavor only things as it will create some more interesting combinations. But Warforged aren't setting-specific, they're in MMIII.

They are? I didn't know.

[Telonius]

Lets just say I have a large enough sample size to trust that the cats attract problem players.

Smaller sample size, but I've had the experience that problem players tend to attract cats. Several houses with cats, they always seem to gravitate to the biggest minmaxers. (No idea what this might signify, but I suspect they're taking notes for if they ever get around to overthrowing the humans).

[RNightstalker]

Smaller sample size, but I've had the experience that problem players tend to attract cats. Several houses with cats, they always seem to gravitate to the biggest minmaxers. (No idea what this might signify, but I suspect they're taking notes for if they ever get around to overthrowing the humans).

LOL well said...I'll have to make sure to bring that up next time a character buys a house.

[Falontani]

Uh… :smallconfused:

There's nothing *inherent* to Illithid Savant that makes it break action economy.

And Tainted Sorcerer Taint is kinda limited by Wisdom.


Illithid Savant doesn't break the action economy so much as breaks the class level economy. From what I remember it could gain any skill ranks and class features of other characters.

And I thought tainted scholar was explicitly immune to the effects of taint, which would include depravity.

[Quertus]

Illithid Savant doesn't break the action economy so much as breaks the class level economy. From what I remember it could gain any skill ranks and class features of other characters.

And I thought tainted scholar was explicitly immune to the effects of taint, which would include depravity.

Breaks class level economy? Maybe? Balance to the table, but… a Cleric can pump arbitrary skill checks much higher than your average Illithid Savant.

I don't know about Tainted Scholar, but Tainted Sorcerer still takes ½ Taint as a reduction to Wisdom. Playground? (Or I'll see if I can find the book (Heroes of Horror, right?) buried in my stuff)

[One Step Two]

Breaks class level economy? Maybe? Balance to the table, but… a Cleric can pump arbitrary skill checks much higher than your average Illithid Savant.

I don't know about Tainted Scholar, but Tainted Sorcerer still takes ½ Taint as a reduction to Wisdom. Playground? (Or I'll see if I can find the book (Heroes of Horror, right?) buried in my stuff)

Tainted Sorcerer does indeed still takes ½ Taint to their wisdom score. However, it only exists in UA/SRD. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm#taintedSorcerer) Tainted scholar can suppress external proof of taint, trading it for more madness, but in no-way mitigates their own taint score. HoH has a different metric for how far gone you are before your character dies or is driven insane (becoming an NPC), which is a little more forgiving than the UA variant, but the effects are no less severe.

[NigelWalmsley]

IME, anyone who comes to the table with a pre-determined banlist is asking for trouble. 90% of the time what happens is that you hit something someone likes, and very often they either drop from the group (contrary to the assertions of many people in this thread, this is not a beneficial filtering, but something that often results in campaigns not firing), or they build something even more optimized than what they were previously planning. To get good results you need to work with the group as a whole to figure out what kind of campaign you want to run, what kinds of characters people want to play, and what kinds of things need to be banned, buffed, allowed, or nerfed to make that happen.


It sounds nice to say "hey, orcs/drow/whatever are people too," but unless it has been pre-arranged that the campaign is going to specifically involve that theme, all it does is clash with any adventure where you're supposed to kill those enemies. Which you can counter by making explicit all the unforgivable immediate-execution-worthy crimes they've done, but then it's squickier than a lot of people will want to deal with.

I think this objection is nonsense. No one is concerned that the adventures where you fight a Human crimelord or a mad Gnomish inventor mean that the party's Human Paladin or Gnome Bard are going to get killed on sight, and the vast majority of adventures postulate that the bad guys are "cultists" or "invaders" or something else that makes it okay to stab them without having to either worry about moral consequences or hear about how they eat puppies alive.


So when I say designated bad guy race, it includes an inherent no-PCs component. Designated bad guy race means kill on sight, do not suffer moral quandary, we're here to kill monsters and take their stuff.

And it mostly does not include the races people want to play. The only races that are truly "kill on sight" on a racial level are things like Mindflayers that are obligate people-eaters, and IME the vast majority of people understand that wanting to play one of those is a big and non-standard ask. Drow or Orcs might have been there at one point, but not for longer than I've been alive.


This is just wrong. Natural Spell explicitly says that you still have to make gestures and noises to cast spells in animal form; it in no way mimic Still Spell or Silent Spell. And it doesn't mimic Eschew Materials, either. You still have to have a component/focus to cast a spell that requires one with Natural Spell; the feat just lets you use them if they've melded into your form.

Natural Spell is just honestly not that big of a deal. Wild Shape and Spellcasting don't have much synergy, and Spellcasting is basically just better, so if you get rid of Natural Spell, Druids are basically going to turn into spellcasters who sometimes fall back on Bear Form either when they run out of slots or when they build in a Gish-y direction. Frankly, if you think Natural Spell is offensive, you should just remove Wild Shape from the Druid and leave it to the Wild Shape Ranger. It's not like they need it to be competitive.

[Fizban]

Y'all poking the hornet's nest on this one-

This, though, I don't get. An extra +2 STR is nice, sure, but even if the character doesn't care about CHA at all, it's still balanced by the -2 to INT and WIS, which are important to any character for skills and Will saves. In the scheme of things.
Except the character doesn't care about Int or Wis either. The game only ever requires one character to have two skills: Search and Disable on a Trapfinder. All other skills are completely optional, and because the Rogue was given a massive 8+Int skill points, the Rogue can always get those two skills even at the absolute minimum Int. As for Wis: a -1 to Will saves, which is less than the +2 given by a feat, and unlike Dex or Con where the stat also includes other main factors of AC and hit points, Wis controls nothing other than Will saves and skills you don't actually need.

Int and Wis (and Cha even moreso) are in fact worth less for characters that don't use them. The designers were not wrong about that, they just knew what the game they designed was actually incentivizing and were completely up front honest about it (at least in this particular instance).
-(Similarly, the human's bonus skill points, whle a fine worldbuilding element, handy for characters who do want more skills, and obviously worth something, and nonetheless not valued as combat power or necessity in any way).

Even if it was somehow an actual tradeoff, I'd still ban it for exceeding the expected limits. As I said regarding point buys and arrays, the game never actually expects you to have a starting 18 or 20*. LA +0 races with +4 stats hit that even on Elite array. There's a reason that people find giving their parties 35 or 40 point buy (and don't get me started on LA "buyoff") have to power up all the monsters: because their PCs are all operating at +2-4 above what those monsters expect on every roll they make. And as that is very much not the game I'm looking for, obviously I'm going to ban LA 0/+4 Str Orcs as a PC race.

Maybe they thought people would actually be rolling in such a way that rarely, some games would have one character with high stats, and that would be mostly unobtrusive, but that's not what LA 0/+4 stat races (or massive point buys or rolling methods) do.

*And yet, I am still allowing an array with a starting 17, and standard PC races that include +2 stats, so you can do it- at very specific costs and maximums.

Humans' free feat with no drawbacks is much stronger (and it looks like the devs agreed with that analysis, since they released several subraces that are strict upgrades but still have LA +0, like Water Orcs and Frostblood Orcs, but you'll still almost never see those recommended in optimization handbooks over Human)
A human cannot ever in any way match the +4 str of an orc. There is not one feat that will give them +2 str, nor will two feats give them +4. It does not matter how nebulously "stronger" a human's feat choice might be, what matters is that LA +0 orc has more str than the system expects, and makes any str-based character who's not an orc look like garbage. No matter what level they are, there is nothing a non-orc can do with their build to make up that difference that the orc cannot also do- unless it is something based on Combat Expertise or another feat or feature which requires one of the penalized stats. But there is no Combat Expertise-based feat that just gives a bunch of extra attack and damage, and forcing a character to go into Paladin for Divine Feats or Cleric or Wizard, forces them out of the mundane martial archetype in order to compete with the Orc. Even most beefy PrCs will deliberately require few or no skill points.

People normally recognize that if you're forcing someone to gish or take a specific PrC or something in order to keep up, rather than what you wanted to take, whatever is providing that pressure is likely a problem. This holds true even if the offending mechanic is a race- an particularly one that also falls under "obvious DM bad guy stuff." The Str gap for an Orc character is enough that any time someone not playing one makes an attack, they'll know that attack could have been so much better if they'd just made an orc, and there's nothing they can do to change that.

The only real balancing feature the orc has, which you haven't even mentioned, is Light Blindness. Suddenly being blinded with no-save is a serious penalty. And also one will never happen because the rest of the party probably needs light. Eating a -1 to attack at all times almost makes them look like a half-orc with more damage (assuming that torch or lantern light is bright enough to trigger it), but that is 1: still more damage, and 2: still easily and immediately negated if you allow things like Sundark Goggles (a 10gp fix written because lol kobolds). If you specifically banned Sundark Goggles, and the campaign required significant use of Darkvision where canny foes could and would blind them on occasion, maybe the orc would just barely squeeze in.


That's because WOTC thought strength would be the God Stat. I'm not sure why they thought so (because dex was already the God Stat back in the TSR days, and also in variant RPGs like Alternity) but that's why racial strength boosts are overpriced.
They're overpriced because Str matters for every character that makes weapon attacks or has to carry gear, but the main thing is that penalties to mental stats are simply not significant penalties on their own to a character who is not using them. I don't know how this argument that "I could have been a Wizard, so that penalty to the Int I assigned a base of 8 to was a real tradeoff," ever gained traction. You know how the classes work before assigning your stats, it's not some gotcha, and penalties to things you aren't using aren't penalties.

Wizard builders will fully acknowledge this, taking piles of flaws to get free feats by penalizing things they don't need, and most people seem to recognize this is bogus, but turn it around and suddenly the poor orc needs. . . skill points? For what? No skills are required, Fighter doesn't have any that most consider significant, and even Barbarian only has Listen, which you can max with your minimum 1/level.


I think this objection is nonsense. No one is concerned that the adventures where you fight a Human crimelord or a mad Gnomish inventor mean that the party's Human Paladin or Gnome Bard are going to get killed on sight, and the vast majority of adventures postulate that the bad guys are "cultists" or "invaders" or something else that makes it okay to stab them without having to either worry about moral consequences or hear about how they eat puppies alive.
Then your worlds are clearly far more cosmopolitan and accepting than some. But that's also the point where anyone can ask "wait, shouldn't these cultists be allowed to practice their religion?" or "hey, these raiders has families to feed too!", and suddenly things are all morally grey until you up the ante. If your players all agree that any amount of lethal force means it's appropriate to kill, then sure that works- until they realize the Rogue's round one sneak attack is a pre-emptive strike.

The problem is more of a low-level adventure design/game starting thing, since there are so few actual low-level monsters. It seems inevitable that some amount of humanoid foes will need to be used, and it really is just easier if you can point to some and say that they are unambiguously rejected by all societies for good and verified reasons. Maybe it's not something you've had a problem with, but I have, and it's a serious worldbuilding question.

Drow or Orcs might have been there at one point, but not for longer than I've been alive
They were at the start of 3.x, which is where my game is aimed at. And sure, as a flood of people saw potentially playable "evil" races they could edgelord the Drizzt and Warcraft clones into, the restrictions loosened and fell- and as editions rolled on, the bonuses fell to match. And yet, even the 5e PHB says that you need to check with your DM before playing a Drow, and has no entry for a full-blooded Orc (even though they've hilariously made Tieflings and Dragonborn standard races).

[Dunsparce]

3.5, not just me but my entire D&D group allows not only all 1st party materials(splatbooks, magazine, web articles), but also 2nd party ones(Dragonlance books outside of the first, Kingdoms of Kalamar).

Of the things we have banned, there has only been 2: The spell Teleport Through Time from a web article, and the Epic Spellcasting Feat(We reach epic levels more frequently than most groups do).

We're all friends that trust each other and have known one another for years, so we've never had problems with many things most groups ban, in fact some of them(like Leadership) are taken quite frequently.

[Rynjin]

Y'all poking the hornet's nest on this one-

Except the character doesn't care about Int or Wis either. The game only ever requires one character to have two skills: Search and Disable on a Trapfinder. All other skills are completely optional, and because the Rogue was given a massive 8+Int skill points, the Rogue can always get those two skills even at the absolute minimum Int. As for Wis: a -1 to Will saves, which is less than the +2 given by a feat, and unlike Dex or Con where the stat also includes other main factors of AC and hit points, Wis controls nothing other than Will saves and skills you don't actually need.

Int and Wis (and Cha even moreso) are in fact worth less for characters that don't use them. The designers were not wrong about that, they just knew what the game they designed was actually incentivizing and were completely up front honest about it (at least in this particular instance).
-(Similarly, the human's bonus skill points, whle a fine worldbuilding element, handy for characters who do want more skills, and obviously worth something, and nonetheless not valued as combat power or necessity in any way).

Even if it was somehow an actual tradeoff, I'd still ban it for exceeding the expected limits. As I said regarding point buys and arrays, the game never actually expects you to have a starting 18 or 20*. LA +0 races with +4 stats hit that even on Elite array. There's a reason that people find giving their parties 35 or 40 point buy (and don't get me started on LA "buyoff") have to power up all the monsters: because their PCs are all operating at +2-4 above what those monsters expect on every roll they make. And as that is very much not the game I'm looking for, obviously I'm going to ban LA 0/+4 Str Orcs as a PC race.

Maybe they thought people would actually be rolling in such a way that rarely, some games would have one character with high stats, and that would be mostly unobtrusive, but that's not what LA 0/+4 stat races (or massive point buys or rolling methods) do.

*And yet, I am still allowing an array with a starting 17, and standard PC races that include +2 stats, so you can do it- at very specific costs and maximums.

A human cannot ever in any way match the +4 str of an orc. There is not one feat that will give them +2 str, nor will two feats give them +4. It does not matter how nebulously "stronger" a human's feat choice might be, what matters is that LA +0 orc has more str than the system expects, and makes any str-based character who's not an orc look like garbage. No matter what level they are, there is nothing a non-orc can do with their build to make up that difference that the orc cannot also do- unless it is something based on Combat Expertise or another feat or feature which requires one of the penalized stats. But there is no Combat Expertise-based feat that just gives a bunch of extra attack and damage, and forcing a character to go into Paladin for Divine Feats or Cleric or Wizard, forces them out of the mundane martial archetype in order to compete with the Orc. Even most beefy PrCs will deliberately require few or no skill points.

People normally recognize that if you're forcing someone to gish or take a specific PrC or something in order to keep up, rather than what you wanted to take, whatever is providing that pressure is likely a problem. This holds true even if the offending mechanic is a race- an particularly one that also falls under "obvious DM bad guy stuff." The Str gap for an Orc character is enough that any time someone not playing one makes an attack, they'll know that attack could have been so much better if they'd just made an orc, and there's nothing they can do to change that.

The only real balancing feature the orc has, which you haven't even mentioned, is Light Blindness. Suddenly being blinded with no-save is a serious penalty. And also one will never happen because the rest of the party probably needs light. Eating a -1 to attack at all times almost makes them look like a half-orc with more damage (assuming that torch or lantern light is bright enough to trigger it), but that is 1: still more damage, and 2: still easily and immediately negated if you allow things like Sundark Goggles (a 10gp fix written because lol kobolds). If you specifically banned Sundark Goggles, and the campaign required significant use of Darkvision where canny foes could and would blind them on occasion, maybe the orc would just barely squeeze in.


They're overpriced because Str matters for every character that makes weapon attacks or has to carry gear, but the main thing is that penalties to mental stats are simply not significant penalties on their own to a character who is not using them. I don't know how this argument that "Ih, I could have been a Wizard, so that penalty to the Int I assigned a base of 8 to was a real tradeoff," ever gained traction. You know how the classes work before assigning your stats, it's not some gotcha, and penalties to things you aren't using aren't penalties.

Wizard builders will fully acknowledge this, taking piles of flaws to get free feats by penalizing things they don't need, and most people seem to recognize this is bogus, but turn it around and suddenly the poor orc needs. . . skill points? For what?

This is so bizarre to me barely know how to respond.

Even if you were correct, and an extra +2 Str is really THAT strong (which...+1 attack and +1-2 damage is nice, but what?), is it worth a level? No. Not in any sense whatsoever. Thinking it is is so...strange. Maybe I'm misunderstanding; is a level really THAT weak in 3.5? I can't imagine it could be.

Particularly when you're downplaying the drawbacks of, if nothing else, a -2 to Wisdom. That's a penalty to the most important skill(s) in the game and the most important save in the game. It more than balances out a bit of extra damage that, in most circumstances, is going to be completely irrelevant past levels 1 or 2. It doesn't matter what your class is, a -1 to Will and Perception (or Spot/Search/Whatever) sucks. Not having skill points also sucks. Admittedly, the -2 CHa is basically irrelevant, but that's true for any non-Cha based class, it's not an issue with Orcs.

Putting a level adjustment on one of the weakest races is absolutely absurd, but to be fair I guess that fits in with a lot of the rest of your ban/nerf list (I have literally never seen anyone else take the...let's go with bold stance that MAGE ARMOR and PRESTIDIGITATION of all things are overpowered).

[Fizban]

This is so bizarre to me barely know how to respond.

Even if you were correct, and an extra +2 Str is really THAT strong (which...+1 attack and +1-2 damage is nice, but what?), is it worth a level? No. Not in any sense whatsoever. Thinking it is is so...strange. Maybe I'm misunderstanding; is a level really THAT weak in 3.5? I can't imagine it could be.
A level is worth +1 attack. +2 Str is worth +1 attack and +1-1.5 damage. It's pretty cut and dry. Except the orc doesn't have any level adjustment, so I don't know why you're making that comparison.

Pre-Edit: ah, I see you seem to have decided I want it to have LA +1- no, I just don't allow it as a player race. Goliaths are allowed at LA +1, though I'm keeping an eye on them, and there is no such thing as "LA buyoff." Even so, if their intended build does not include anything significant that would be delayed by the LA, I'd be inclined to disallow Goliath: a martial adept or fancy prestige class, but a straight barbarian. . . well barbarian is a little lean in the middle levels so call it a stealth buff?

You also keep saying it's only +2 str, while saying the human's bonus feat is stronger. But comparing it to +2 str means you're comparing to half-orc's +2 str, not human bonus feat. So, which is it?

Particularly when you're downplaying the drawbacks of, if nothing else, a -2 to Wisdom. That's a penalty to the most important skill(s) in the game and the most important save in the game.
If you do not recognize that the game requires no skills beyond one Trapfinder, not even Listen or Spot, then there can be no agreement. Even if it did, you have three other party members. Games that expect every character to have Listen/Spot (Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Diplomacy. . .) are not functioning as originally planned. Those are extra requirements added by the DM's choice and/or optimization of their monsters and encounters.

The standard expectation for a stealth monster, is that it ambushes the party. Not that everyone in the party spots it, except for the poor bastard who didn't optimize into partial skillmonkey. This is also why well-designed stealth and pouncing monsters are actually incapable of one-rounding the wizard. At least in MM1- as MM3 is the book of char-op'd and overpowered monsters, I'm sure it breaks that rule and makes party-wide spotting more important.

It more than balances out a bit of extra damage that, in most circumstances, is going to be completely irrelevant past levels 1 or 2.
This is a thought process that always gets me- char-op will scrimp and cram every possible bonus they can get until their numbers are huge, and yet somehow people will also argue that small stacking bonuses are irrelevant whenever it would help prove a point, usually the point that some incremental bonus should be allowed for free. (Though it's also funny looking as some of the hoops a build might jump through to get +1d6, while also claiming that Weapon Spec/Mastery is a bad feat)

As someone said in a different thread recently, DnD is a game about incremental advantages. Every +1 matters. That's why Weapon Focus is only +1, and Specialization is only +2, and they don't scale for free. Having an extra incremental bonus that no one else does, is a bonus no one else has.

Because it's not a +1 or +2. It's a +1 or +2, on top of all your other +1s and +2s, multiplied by your number of attacks, and 1 does not equal zero. If the non-orc would have left a foe standing with a handful of hp, and the orc would have felled them, that is an undeniable gap.

Looked at another way- say there was a race that gave a certain class feature, normally limited, usable at-will and without its normal drawbacks. +4 str is Rage, it's something people dip Barbarian and spend an extra feat to use more often, except an orc gets to stack with it. How much is the "race pick' slot worth? More than zero, but less than this, and the assigned penalties are insufficient to make up for it.

Look, orcs aren't the worst possible way to break an LA +0 race. You don't have to agree with my disallowing them, but pretending that +4 is no different from +2 or +0, really?

Putting a level adjustment on one of the weakest races is absolutely absurd, but to be fair I guess that fits in with a lot of the rest of your ban/nerf list (I have literally never seen anyone else take the...let's go with bold stance that MAGE ARMOR and PRESTIDIGITATION of all things are overpowered).
I never said I was putting an LA on orc, I simply called it out for having no LA. And there's the direct contraction: saying the race with the highest str bonus is also the weakest, defending it as if its loss is so terrible. . but if it's so weak why do you demand it stick around?

Ah, I see you noticed my Mage Armor nerf. Yes indeed, I have nerfed the sacred cows of Mage Armor and Shield.

For you see, people are always complaining AC and armor are bad, and even when you show that AC is in fact good, they say that Mage Armor and Shield are better. How to fix? Well I've nudged medium armors up by +1 or so, and added kite shields for +3 shield AC, allowing a net +2 AC or at the critical 1st level where armor tends to look particularly bad (I also increased Dodge to +2, so AC boosting feats don't look so bad either). And I've nerfed Mage Armor and Shield so that they match- still actually exceeding what a light armor character would have when combined, but also definitvely less than heavy armor.

And of course I banned the heck out of Abjurant Champion, and not even just for mocking armor.

I already gave my explanation of how Prestidigitation is overpowered. Other cantrips have an instant or maybe minutes long effect, Big P gives you unlimited use for an hour, including effects that are found in no other spell. In particular, the cleaning function laughs at the most classical use of Unseen Servant (sweeping, washing dishes, etc), which is a full 1st level spell, and the Big P doesn't even require you bring your own soap! By any honest critique, Prestidigitation is overpowered. Not in a Horrible Game Blance Destroying way, but certainly in the significance of low level spells.

And those lowest level spells are the vast majority of what the world experiences of magic. So for worldbuilding purposes, yeah I actually think it's pretty important even if you don't.

[King of Nowhere]

IME, anyone who comes to the table with a pre-determined banlist is asking for trouble. 90% of the time what happens is that you hit something someone likes, and very often they either drop from the group (contrary to the assertions of many people in this thread, this is not a beneficial filtering, but something that often results in campaigns not firing), or they build something even more optimized than what they were previously planning. To get good results you need to work with the group as a whole to figure out what kind of campaign you want to run, what kinds of characters people want to play, and what kinds of things need to be banned, buffed, allowed, or nerfed to make that happen.


but that's exactly the purpose of a ban list.
The ban list is not some dumb fixed list where you write stuff that cannot be done and the players are all "ha-ha! you forgot to include the infinite wishes from ring of djin calling, so i am going to do that!". the ban list is not a flat "don't play this and that".
rather, the ban list is meant to set the power level of the campaign, and possibly some quirk of the setting (in this world there is no teleportation because i want to tell a story about a long trip. no, the spell simply does not exhist and the laws of magic of this universe do not allow it, or there is no underdark, no drows, no mind flayers). it is meant to help the players get an idea of what kind of optimization level they should try to hit. because i don't know about you, but to me "no incantatrix, no uberchargers, no particularly nasty stuff without saving throws" spells the expected power level of the campaign, what kind of powers the pcs are supposed to have, and what they are not supposed to have, and I have literally no idea how to convey the same concept without making a long list of stuff that's ok to play and stuff that's too strong for the table (i.e. banned).

and the ban list is not this monolithic document where you assert your will over the player, woe on them. No, the ban list is flexible. i say no incantatrix, there is a guy who really wanted to play one, well, we sit down and try to figure out some viable nerf/build that's of an acceptable power level (although in that specific case i think i should have been hard and ban incantatrix; i had to ban a lot of other more innocent stuff to make the incantatrix not too broken). or if the whole party wants to play at a higher power level, we can lift some bans. if one wants to use a banned power in a non-broken way, allowances can be made.

ultimately, the ban list is exactly the same thing as gentlemen agreement and balance to the table; only, instead of expecting that everyone will sort of conform to the expected power, you discuss it explicitly and you write it down. it ensures everyone is on the same page. it tries to define the expected power level in a way that's as clear as possible for everyone, by stating "this kind of stuff is above the expected power level". it also protects the players, because if something is on the ban list, i also cannot use it against them.

at least, that's what the ban list is supposed to be, if you apply it smartly. people complaining about ban lists mostly complain about the dumb version, the one where there's no interaction with the players and that just encourages them to find other avenues of optimization.


stuff about orcs
all that is true, and an orc fighter is significantly stronger than a human or half-orc fighter.
but then, it's not so much stronger to be worth a level adjustment. and it still sucks compared to an optimized caster.

my personal solution to that is to only allow the player to pick one such race if they have a good roleplaying reason for it. so, if you want to read all the worldbuilding stuff and then you decide to be an orc in my setting, with all the cultural baggage attached, you're welcome. if you just want to be a fighter with starting str 22 and no significant downsides, then NOPE!

EDIT:


A level is worth +1 attack. +2 Str is worth +1 attack and +1-1.5 damage. It's pretty cut and dry. Except the orc doesn't have any level adjustment, so I don't know why you're making that comparison.


a level is also worth hit points, saving throws, skill points, feats, class skills. sacrificing all that for a boost to your attack one risks becoming too much of a glass cannon. yes, i know you are not suggesting to give LA to orcs, was just talking about the theory of level value.
i would agree on banning it for pcs on account of it being too good for LA 0, but not good enough to deserve a LA +1. But i already stated my solution, and i like it better

[Fizban]

all that is true, and an orc fighter is significantly stronger than a human or half-orc fighter.
but then, it's not so much stronger to be worth a level adjustment. and it still sucks compared to an optimized caster.
I'm going to aggressively jam another post in, because I did not say orcs should have LA +1, and while the previous misunderstanding on Natural Spell was amusing, this is not.

I do not allow orcs for PCs. I do not recommend them at LA +1. I do not recommend them at LA +0.

By my reading, Orcs are obviously meant for DM use, and their given mechanics do not fit at either +1 or +0. They do not work as a PC race, period.

I did not say orcs should have LA +1

[NigelWalmsley]

As I said regarding point buys and arrays, the game never actually expects you to have a starting 18 or 20*.

You seem to be using a non-standard definition of "expects". Of the three stat assignment methods mentioned in Core (random roll, fixed array, and point buy), two of the three allow you to have an 18 at character creation. It's certainly not required but the idea that it's somehow bizarre or unprecedented is entirely unsupported by the rules.


There's a reason that people find giving their parties 35 or 40 point buy (and don't get me started on LA "buyoff") have to power up all the monsters

This is not a thing that happens.


A human cannot ever in any way match the +4 str of an orc.

Sure they can. A human is ahead by one feat. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the one feat they're ahead by is Power Attack. Assuming both characters are attacking in melee with a two-handed weapon, the Orc gets +2 to hit and +3 to damage. The Human can trade off one point of to-hit for two points of damage. If the Human Power Attacks for 5 points, he's swinging at -7 (relatively) but dealing an extra 7 points of damage on every hit. Is it really inconceivable to you that it could ever be worth it to make that trade-off?


makes any str-based character who's not an orc look like garbage.

You're making an unjustified assumption. Maybe the other things actually are too weak. If the only claim you're making is relative, you could as easily argue that we should ban every race with a +2 Strength bonus because they make the Halfling look like garbage for a Strength-based build.


People normally recognize that if you're forcing someone to gish or take a specific PrC or something in order to keep up, rather than what you wanted to take, whatever is providing that pressure is likely a problem.

And what if someone wants to play an Orc? I promise you, the relative difference between LA 0 Orc and non-Orc is way, way smaller than the relative difference between LA 1 Orc and non-Orc.


an particularly one that also falls under "obvious DM bad guy stuff."

Did you know that World of Warcraft is sixteen years old? Your point has been wrong for long enough that it's wrongness could have a drivers license (and that's being charitable to you).


But that's also the point where anyone can ask "wait, shouldn't these cultists be allowed to practice their religion?" or "hey, these raiders has families to feed too!",

And these players aren't asking "why is it only okay to kill the dark-skinned elves"? Kill-on-sight races are significantly more morally problematic than kill-on-sight anything else for reasons that I hope are obvious.


The problem is more of a low-level adventure design/game starting thing, since there are so few actual low-level monsters.

Uh, what? That's exactly backwards. There are way more low-level monsters than high level ones in basically every book that has monsters, even if you completely discount humanoids. And "no evil races" doesn't stop you from having humanoid enemies.


it really is just easier if you can point to some and say that they are unambiguously rejected by all societies for good and verified reasons.

Again, do you seriously not see the problem with having that be their race?


(even though they've hilariously made Tieflings and Dragonborn standard races).

Dragonborn were introduced as a Good race. You can think they're a stupid race (and I certainly do), but cramming them into your "why can't I just let my players kill people for being the wrong species" rant is just ahistorical.


This is so bizarre to me barely know how to respond.

Pretty much. The idea that +4 Strength is game-breaking displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game functions.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding; is a level really THAT weak in 3.5? I can't imagine it could be.

No. The difference between 1st and 2nd level is getting an additional encounter-ending spell. The difference between 2nd and 3rd level is between 2 and 4 additional encounter-ending spells. The returns don't really diminish from there until you get to the point where most groups aren't playing anymore.


at least, that's what the ban list is supposed to be, if you apply it smartly. people complaining about ban lists mostly complain about the dumb version, the one where there's no interaction with the players and that just encourages them to find other avenues of optimization.

Arguments of this form are, always and everywhere, bad. In this very thread, we have someone arguing at length in the defense of their a priori position that Orcs should get +1 LA. It may be true that there's something that someone calls a "ban list" that is a good idea, but the modal example of a ban list is something that is unhealthy for the game. If you're going to No True Scotsman the argument, you could at least not do it on the same page of the same thread as the guy loudly proclaiming that he, a Scotsman, puts sugar on his porridge.

[Fizban]

You seem to be using a non-standard definition of "expects". Of the three stat assignment methods mentioned in Core (random roll, fixed array, and point buy), two of the three allow you to have an 18 at character creation. It's certainly not required but the idea that it's somehow bizarre or unprecedented is entirely unsupported by the rules.
It is when you notice that all NPC statblocks use the elite array, and Enemies and Allies specifically says that the character stablocks at the end of the book were from playtesting. And they all use the elite array.

This is not a thing that happens.
Um. . what? Are you telling me every thread I've read where someone says their game is X point buy and Y amount of LA buyoff didn't happen? There is literally someone in this thread who just said they allow 30+ points, and multiple people who said they allow some form of LA buyoff.

And while they have not said that they adjust monsters, well why don't we ask? Anyone who allows high point buy and/or LA buyoff: do you do the same for your NPCs, and do you ever have to adjust MM1 and other monsters that seem too weak?

Sure they can. A human is ahead by one feat. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the one feat they're ahead by is Power Attack. Assuming both characters are attacking in melee with a two-handed weapon, the Orc gets +2 to hit and +3 to damage. The Human can trade off one point of to-hit for two points of damage. If the Human Power Attacks for 5 points, he's swinging at -7 (relatively) but dealing an extra 7 points of damage on every hit. Is it really inconceivable to you that it could ever be worth it to make that trade-off?
And then the orc takes Power Attack? And has more attack bonus to trade for damage than the human. If you have to pick one specific level and prevent the opposition from taking the same feat, you have not proved they are weaker.

You're making an unjustified assumption. Maybe the other things actually are too weak. If the only claim you're making is relative, you could as easily argue that we should ban every race with a +2 Strength bonus because they make the Halfling look like garbage for a Strength-based build.
If your position is that anything that is not an Orc, a race which is not even presented in the PHB for players, is too weak, then I believe you are the one who is making an unjustified assumption.

And what if someone wants to play an Orc? I promise you, the relative difference between LA 0 Orc and non-Orc is way, way smaller than the relative difference between LA 1 Orc and non-Orc.
I did not say orcs should have LA +1

If someone wants to play an orc, then I will change the orc.

Did you know that World of Warcraft is sixteen years old? Your point has been wrong for long enough that it's wrongness could have a drivers license (and that's being charitable to you).
Did you know that I played Warcraft 2 on my very first computer? And I in fact own the original Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game sourcebook?

I can have a DnD world where DnD orcs are not Warcraft orcs.

Edit: In fact, lemme crack that book open for a second. What stats does Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game give Orcs?

+2 Con, -2 Int. No racial Str bonus at all- but they do get Rage 1/day, and some other stuff. Though I will also note that nearly all the races in the Warcraft book are a little overpowered compared to PHB, as is quite common for setting books to do.

And these players aren't asking "why is it only okay to kill the dark-skinned elves"? Kill-on-sight races are significantly more morally problematic than kill-on-sight anything else for reasons that I hope are obvious.
It's a tradeoff in setting the initial expectations for a game, and as I said, something worth making a point of in any "session 0." The fact remains that either or both can be used, whether you agree or not.

Uh, what? That's exactly backwards. There are way more low-level monsters than high level ones in basically every book that has monsters, even if you completely discount humanoids. And "no evil races" doesn't stop you from having humanoid enemies.
Are you really sure about that? How many are actually interesting monsters rather than literal animal/vermin pests control? There's a reason most 1st level modules are actually full of encounters above EL 1, and it becomes apparent once you start looking for good monsters you can use at 1st level, particularly if you want more than one, and recognize that even a CR 2 monster is often a huge step up in threat.

And I think this is largely because of the designated bad guy races, kobolds and goblins specifically, which existed for so long that ineventing more interesting low level monsters didn't even occur to most writers. 1st level adventurers fight pests and Small tribal humanoids that always deserve it.

Again, do you seriously not see the problem with having that be their race?
In a fantasy game where I can say the literal gods of Truth itself have verified that every single one of them is born Evil, commits multiple acts of true Evil throughout their lives, form societies which commit further such acts but on a grander scale, and even have a Paladin in the party who will instantly receive a warning from the god of Good itself that actually this one can be redeemed?

Yes, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when half the players want to be all morally grey and edgy, half the players want commentary on racism, and half the players just want to play the damn game. So I will make it clear just what we are doing with a particular game.

Would it bother you if I used the exact same stats but changed their type to Outsider and declared them a race of minor "demons?"

Dragonborn were introduced as a Good race. You can think they're a stupid race (and I certainly do), but cramming them into your "why can't I just let my players kill people for being the wrong species" rant is just ahistorical.
I am attacking Dragonborn for being unsuitable as a standard PC race for a traditional setting, yes. Though I will also admit that the more races they include, the more obvious it is that 5e has left the old paradigm.

Which is a setting I'm perfectly willing to run, but it's not the default I expect, nor will it force me to arbitrarily allow some published race that I disagree with mechanically.

Pretty much. The idea that +4 Strength is game-breaking displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game functions.
Your use of the phrase "game-breaking" shows that you have a different set of priorities to begin with. If you sort everything into "weak," "fine," or "game-breaking," then you are going to accept a ton of things just because they're "not game-breaking." You don't have a target you're aiming at, and are simply responding to whatever people bring up, or you're building yourself at the time. And depending on your mood or what you want to do, "not-game breaking" probably shifts.

I am specifically trying to reign in the game, pre-emptively, with a variety of anchor points for what I'm aiming at. I'm not just banning things that you would call "game-breaking," I'm also banning (or changing) things that are merely overpowered, or that are mechanically fine but maybe too much of a headache, or are underpowered, or conceptually incompatible with what I want the game to be. This does not mean I don't have room for a range of possible power and optimization levels, and as I've said above, my standard response to any request for content is that I will review and include it if possible.

You claim I have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game functions, while ignoring the laundry list of defined mechanical reasons I have given for my argument, because you apparently just don't care about those reasons. One of us is showing a greater lack of understanding, and it's not me.

someone arguing at length in the defense of their a priori position that Orcs should get +1 LA.
I did not say orcs should have LA +1

Your and other posters' assumption that was my stance, while an understandable mistake, is still your mistake.

[Elves]

Only piece of game content a priori banned is Craft Contingent Spell, that feat is nonsense, but it's never come up so I've never had to say so.

[InvisibleBison]

By my reading, Orcs are obviously meant for DM use, and their given mechanics do not fit at either +1 or +0. They do not work as a PC race, period.

Your reading is wrong.


Level Adjustment: This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters

Orcs have a level adjustment, so they're clearly intended to be used as PCs. Moreover, their entry also has "Orc Society" and "Orcs as Characters" sections, unlike the vast majority of creatures with LAs but exactly the same as all the PHB races. Orcs are in fact among the most-intended-to-be-PC races.

[NigelWalmsley]

It is when you notice that all NPC statblocks use the elite array, and Enemies and Allies specifically says that the character stablocks at the end of the book were from playtesting. And they all use the elite array.

And the first suggested attribute assignment method is rolling, which can get you all 18s. I suppose you could claim that the designers were so colossally incompetent that they didn't consider the implications of something they put on the seventh page of their book, but if our opinion of them is that low, I would ask why we care what they did at all.


And while they have not said that they adjust monsters, well why don't we ask? Anyone who allows high point buy and/or LA buyoff: do you do the same for your NPCs, and do you ever have to adjust MM1 and other monsters that seem too weak?

Do none of your houserules effect published monsters? You've never had a stack block that comes out differently because of your Mage Armor nerf?


And then the orc takes Power Attack?

The Orc can't. He has one less feat, and we stipulated that that feat was Power Attack. I suppose that feat could instead be Leap Attack or Shock Trooper or whatever, but that just makes the argument more complicated, not different in any meaningful way.


If your position is that anything that is not an Orc, a race which is not even presented in the PHB for players, is too weak, then I believe you are the one who is making an unjustified assumption.

My position is that you're just flat wrong in your analysis. I would strongly consider Human over Orc for most martial builds even if the Orc only had one mental stat penalty.


I did not say orcs should have LA +1

If someone wants to play an orc, then I will change the orc.

I find that to be a distinction without a difference.


It's a tradeoff in setting the initial expectations for a game, and as I said, something worth making a point of in any "session 0." The fact remains that either or both can be used, whether you agree or not.

This is the sort of meaningless argument that is only made by people who understand that they have lost. Of course you can do whatever you want in your home game. There is no D&D police. But presumably there is some actual reason you have for why "this race of people is evil and can be killed on sight" is a desirable world-building element, and those of us who disagree with you would rather like to hear it.


Are you really sure about that? How many are actually interesting monsters rather than literal animal/vermin pests control?

So to be clear, your position is that the difference between an Orc Warrior and a Goblin Warrior is interesting, but the difference between a Giant Centipede and a Giant Ant is not? Less flippantly, I can't possibly answer this question unless you define what you mean by "interesting". That said, I suspect that whatever concrete issue you are trying to gesture at is more a result of fundamental constraints how very low level play works in 3e (e.g. numbers are low enough at 1st level that it is basically impossible to have "mook" NPCs whatever you do) than any real need for humanoid monsters.


In a fantasy game where I can say the literal gods of Truth itself have verified that every single one of them is born Evil, and even have a Paladin in the party who will instantly receive a warning from the god of Good itself that actually this one can be redeemed?

Sure, you can say that. But why? You could say the exact same things about the Orcus cultists, and it would have exactly zero uncomfortable racial subtext (well, text).


Would it bother you if I used the exact same stats but changed their type to Outsider and declared them a race of minor "demons?"

Why are you so focused on figuring out how to make "you can kill all the Drow" okay? You can already kill all the Ghouls or all the Mind Flayers (because they eat people as a necessary part of their metabolism), why do we need a race that is "basically people", but can be slaughtered indiscriminately? What does that add to the game?


conceptually incompatible with what I want the game to be.

For the record, King of Nowhere, this is the exact problem with ban lists that you're claiming doesn't exist. Fizban has decided what things should be in the game, and has composed a list of those things. His view is, quite explicitly, that people who want things that are not on that list are the problem, regardless of how well-supported and reasonable their requests are.


You claim I have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game functions, while ignoring the laundry list of defined mechanical reasons I have given for my argument, because you apparently just don't care about those reasons. One of us is showing a greater lack of understanding, and it's not me.

What "laundry list" of reasons? Your arguments are "Orcs are mechanically overpowered" (which does not hold up to even basic analysis) and "I don't like Orcs" (which is a personal preference that, while not strictly refutable, is not really a meaningful argument, and certainly not a mechanical one).


Your and other posters' assumption that was my stance, while an understandable mistake, is still your mistake.

If you think you said X, and multiple people heard Y, the problem is that you spoke unclearly, not that they misheard you.

[Elves]

Sure they can. A human is ahead by one feat. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the one feat they're ahead by is Power Attack.
It doesn't even have to be such a direct comparison. Suppose they're ahead by Combat Reflexes.

Orc not being OP is proven enough by how few charop builds choose it. Even the famous dragonborn water orc, which has +4 Con and wings over base MM orc, is used less than human for martials. What you mostly see is frostblood orc used for martials who need Endurance anyway. A single feat used well is frequently better than the +2 atk, +3 damage from an orc 2handing.

Orcs are probably more balanced than the other PHB races because they actually make you stop and think when comparing to humans. It should be that if you don't have anything you specifically need that human feat for, that's going to benefit your build in a substantial way, human isn't optimal.

[Fizban]

Your reading is wrong.
And I find your context lacking. Orcs were not written for 3.5: they were written for 3.0, where LA did not exist. The fact that their stats were unchanged and they were given LA +0 when that was added to the game, does not change anything about their origins. I consider this to be an obvious bug, not a well-considered feature. The primary target of the Monster Manual is DMs, not players, and if anything the Monster Manuals are the one most obvious place that players should not be assuming they have free access.


I've decided to try something new, and since it contains nothing particularly new, have sent the bulk of my response to NigelWalmsley via PM, rather than continuing to clutter up the thread. But this is where I draw the line:


Fizban has decided what things should be in the game, and has composed a list of those things. His view is, quite explicitly, that people who want things that are not on that list are the problem, regardless of how well-supported and reasonable their requests are.
No, my view is, quite explicitly stated in this thread, that people who want things that are on the ban list will not be happy in my game, and that people who want things that I have not considered or are not aware of are absolutely and ecstatically welcomed to show me what they're interested in. You may have simply missed it if you weren't reading my posts before the orc discussion, but I've already wasted half a day on this, and I don't care. Here's the quote:


I will blanket look at anything from any source, if it means the players are actually interested in the game mechanics and found something cool they want. The amount of effort it takes for me to fix something is so much less than the effort required to shove builds in front of someone's face until they bite.

Since you have now outright, blatantly contradicted my previous, direct statements, in a deliberately insulting fashion: We're done.

I consider this matter closed.




It doesn't even have to be such a direct comparison. Suppose they're ahead by Combat Reflexes.
Now this is a better example, with a very obvious potential advantage, but it's still something the orc can take. Eventually either the human runs out of significant feats, or the orc catches up and surpasses them thanks to the the +4 str that cannot be replicated.

And when we further consider based on those playtest characters, that only a few feats are actually expected to be used at once (partially because there were so few in the PHB), the expected value of the feat diminishes over time, and a build so feat-heavy that a human has an advantage for the entire game, is almost certainly overpowered, compared to those initial expectations.

And since I am aiming for my base elements to fit closer to those original expectations, rather than assuming a certain minimum amount of char-op (or indeed, a level of char-op where every feat is always accounted for), I do not assume that the human will somehow always be "ahead" a feat.

Or to put it bluntly and as should be obvious: Orcs can be 100% mechanically overpowered in my game, and 100% mechanically underpowered in someone else's. Their game does not disprove mine, or mine theirs, and claiming that I don't have a justification when I have explicitly stated several is a direct insult I am growing quite tired of, so I hope you won't continue it.

And as there are (or were) posters in this thread that have agreed with my bans and changes, don't try to tell me my analysis can't apply to other games either.

Orc not being OP is proven enough by how few charop builds choose it. Even the famous dragonborn water orc, which has +4 Con and wings over base MM orc, is used less than human for martials. What you mostly see is frostblood orc used for martials who need Endurance anyway. A single feat used well is frequently better than the +2 atk, +3 damage from an orc 2handing.
This will be because those char-op builds account for every single feat, and the multiplicative advantage of even one more feat on such a build is more powerful than a mere +4 strength.

But that is not the level of optimization or general power level that my game, most MM1 monsters, the DMG encounter guidelines, and many old modules expect.

Orcs are probably more balanced than the other PHB races because they actually make you stop and think when comparing to humans. It should be that if you don't have anything you actually need that human feat for, that's going to benefit your build in a substantial way, human isn't optimal.
And thus, Half-Orc. Or any of the other non-human races.




Orcs with +4 str and LA 0 are actually an extremely effective litmus test for this sort of thing. The question of whether they're fine or overpowered comes down to a bunch of underlying principles and starting points.

If your optimization and power levels already assume that it's fine, then you can assume that anyone who disagrees is working from dramatically different principles, with which you may disagree strongly.
And if you look at it and immediately know something's off, you can assume that anyone who accepts it as a matter of course will be operating at a higher power level than what you're looking for.


So, it's a perfect example of something to put on a ban list.

[NigelWalmsley]

Orcs are probably more balanced than the other PHB races because they actually make you stop and think when comparing to humans. It should be that if you don't have anything you actually need that human feat for, that's going to benefit your build in a substantial way, human isn't optimal.

It's also worth noting that the builds Orcs are good for are, to be frank, underpowered. Maybe it is always correct to play an Orc if you want to build a martial character. But that just means that the balance between martials and casters is better. Which improves the game overall.

This, incidentally, is something I think a lot of people don't really appreciate properly. While imbalance in the system is a problem, the real problem in practice is imbalance at the table, and it's often easier to fix that with buffs than nerfs. People tend to object strongly to nerfs, particularly nerfs they think are unwarranted. Conversely, no one complains about getting a buff, even if they didn't think they needed it.


I've decided to try something new, and since it contains nothing particularly new, have sent the bulk of my response to NigelWalmsley via PM, rather than continuing to clutter up the thread. But this is where I draw the line:

I'm sorry that you view arguments defending your positions as "clutter". I don't, so I will continue defending my positions in this thread. I also don't feel any obligation to respond to arguments you don't think are good enough to make publicly.


No, my view is, quite explicitly stated in this thread, that people who want things that are on the ban list will not be happy in my game

And that's the same issue. It's not "your" game. You don't own it. It's the group's game. The issue, fundamentally, is that you are unwilling to accept a game that includes things on your list. No matter how you dress that up, that's a problem with you and your list, not anyone else.

Now, to be fair, it's not entirely unreasonable to have bright lines like that. There are definitely topics that I would not consider appropriate for a game I'm playing. But I'm willing to acknowledge that those are restrictions I'm making, not the result of someone else. And none of them are things like "people want to play Orcs".


I do not assume that the human will somehow always be "ahead" a feat.

That's what being Human does. You might as well assume that the Orc will assign their stats 8/14/12/15/12/10 and the Human 15/14/12/13/10/8, giving the Human strictly superior stats.


I don't have a justification when I have explicitly stated several is a direct insult

Someone refuting your argument is not an insult. Someone rejecting your argument is not an insult. Someone saying your position is unjustified is not an insult. Disagreeing with you is not insulting you, and if all you want is to be allowed to play games the way you want to play them, it has already been noted that no one has the power to take that away from you. But if you are going to keep arguing with people in this thread, you need to make some kind of argument that is more than just "I don't like it". It's fine if you don't like it, but unless I'm going to play a game with you, it's unclear to me why your preferences should influence my opinion. If all you want to do is make your distaste known, that was done the moment you said "I ban Orcs", and you can move on from a discussion you apparently do not want to have.


But that is not the level of optimization or general power level that my game, most MM1 monsters, the DMG encounter guidelines, and many old modules expect.

Is this based on some kind of testing or analysis that someone could replicate? Is there an argument here beyond "this is my perception"? Because there are plenty of people with other perceptions, and unless you have some kind of evidence that at least attempts to transcend the subjective, it's unclear why your argument should be persuasive to anyone else.

[InvisibleBison]

And I find your context lacking. Orcs were not written for 3.5: they were written for 3.0, where LA did not exist. The fact that their stats were unchanged and they were given LA +0 when that was added to the game, does not change anything about their origins.

Orcs absolutely were written for 3.5, because the people who were writing the 3.5 Monster Manual could have changed them and chose not to. Their "origins" in 3.0 are no more relevant to a discussion of 3.5 than their 2nd Edition stats.

Also, just as an aside, level adjustment was actually introduced during 3.0 - it's in Savage Species and the Epic Level Handbook, and possibly other books that I'm not aware of.


I consider this to be an obvious bug, not a well-considered feature.

It's fine if you want to play 3.0, but since 3.5 is the overwhelming default on this forum you really should specify that's what you're doing.


The primary target of the Monster Manual is DMs, not players, and if anything the Monster Manuals are the one most obvious place that layers should not be assuming they have free access.

Again, the actual text of the Monster Manual clearly and explicitly intends for players to be able to use orcs. The fact that you don't like this fact doesn't make it false.

[Nifft]

How much XP

did the orc get

for killing this thread?

[Kurald Galain]

Except the character doesn't care about Int or Wis either. The game only ever requires one character to have two skills: Search and Disable on a Trapfinder. All other skills are completely optional,
Having a str-based melee character in the party is also completely optional.

The point is that most players want skills. It's pretty rare to see anyone dump int entirely, because they want the skill points (and moreso with Pathfinder's more inclusive skill system). It's also pretty rare for anyone to dump wisdom, because of will saves and awareness skills. The most common dump stats, in my experience, are charisma and strength.

So yeah, while it's clear that not all stats are equal, WOTC is still overvaluing strength.

[King of Nowhere]

Arguments of this form are, always and everywhere, bad. In this very thread, we have someone arguing at length in the defense of their a priori position that Orcs should get +1 LA. It may be true that there's something that someone calls a "ban list" that is a good idea, but the modal example of a ban list is something that is unhealthy for the game. If you're going to No True Scotsman the argument, you could at least not do it on the same page of the same thread as the guy loudly proclaiming that he, a Scotsman, puts sugar on his porridge.

ok, then we need a new name for the flexible concept i spearhead.
because the commonly used "gentlemen agreement" or "balance to the table" imply the players doing everything by themselves, and it is not a good strategy to deal with inexperienced players or with newly forged groups.

as for what is unhealty for the game, i have my reservations. personally, i'd much prefer to be handed a ban list from the beginning and have rules and limitations clearly set rather than to be just expected to conform to some unspoken rule that's actually different for every table

finally, i think the vast majority of those people who are, by your similitude, "loudly proclaiming that they put sugar on their porridge", would actually be much more reasonable and willing to bend if kindly asked for good motivations

EDIT:

the real problem in practice is imbalance at the table, and it's often easier to fix that with buffs than nerfs. People tend to object strongly to nerfs, particularly nerfs they think are unwarranted. Conversely, no one complains about getting a buff, even if they didn't think they needed it.
the problem with that is that full casters without limitations are so ridiculous they're not even funny to use. and making everyone else equally ridiculous is also not funny.
to make an extreme example: a caster can get free wishes by some summonings. would giving the martials free wishes fix the problem?
you ban stuff rather than buff not because you want to enforce balance among the classes, but because you are asking yourself "what kind of campaign do i want to play?"

[Quertus]

ok, then we need a new name for the flexible concept i spearhead.
because the commonly used "gentlemen agreement" or "balance to the table" imply the players doing everything by themselves, and it is not a good strategy to deal with inexperienced players or with newly forged groups.

Disagree.

Show them sample characters of the average "appropriate" power level. Have them make characters to that guide. If they fail, inform them *how* they've failed. Teach them. You'll no longer have inexperienced players.

Very good for the group.

Note also the high communication involved. Gets the group used to what communication looks like, and that it's expected.

Very good for the group.

Ban lists, OTOH, generally provide the wrong kind of motivation, and are not good tools for producing balance *or* good groups *or* fostering communication.

[NigelWalmsley]

because the commonly used "gentlemen agreement" or "balance to the table" imply the players doing everything by themselves, and it is not a good strategy to deal with inexperienced players or with newly forged groups.

I don't think they imply that at all. They imply the group working together to reach a mutually-agreeable outcome. That is the concept you are trying to articulate. The difference between those things and a ban list is that the latter is imposed in a top-down fashion.


as for what is unhealty for the game, i have my reservations. personally, i'd much prefer to be handed a ban list from the beginning and have rules and limitations clearly set rather than to be just expected to conform to some unspoken rule that's actually different for every table

A ban list doesn't avoid that, it just creates hurt feelings when someone tries to do something that isn't on the ban list, but would have been if whoever wrote the ban list had been aware of it. The only workable dynamic is open communication with the goal of reaching a generally-acceptable consensus.


the problem with that is that full casters without limitations are so ridiculous they're not even funny to use. and making everyone else equally ridiculous is also not funny.

I didn't say "don't ban anything". I said "prefer buffs to bans". Certainly, there are some things you should ban. Without even getting into power concerns, things are often banned for tone or theme -- your Greyhawk game is probably not going to have anyone playing a Dragonmarked Heir, even if that PrC isn't particularly powerful. But generally, you get better results by buffing things, even when we're talking about casters. The vast majority of things people want to do with casters are totally fine, they just happen to be better than what non-casters can do.


Ban lists, OTOH, generally provide the wrong kind of motivation, and are not good tools for producing balance *or* good groups *or* fostering communication.

Think about how a ban list works in other contexts. In a game like Magic or Pokemon, a ban list implicitly says "anything that isn't on the list is okay". If you're playing in a format where Storm combo, or Mewtwo, or whatever is legal to use, you get to use it, even if other people might not like it. I suppose you could write a ban list like that for D&D, but in practice most people can't or won't do it, and even if you did do it, the list would be too tedious to actually use. The practical effect of a ban list for a D&D game is to try to set expected power level guidelines, which is exactly what you'd achieve by just talking to people.

[RNightstalker]

How much XP

did the orc get

for killing this thread?

HAHAHHAHAHAHA!! Love it!!!!

[martixy]

XP!

(I really don't like dealing with anything related to xp.)

Other than that - very little. The locate city spell. DCFS. Nightstick stacking. StP Erudite.

And in a sense - meta-omniscience and free matter creation. That is to say - spells that create matter - create water, iron wall, etc, always have an additional cost proportionate to the amount of stuff created. Meta omniscience means that if you're playing say, an artificer, you don't get to magically emulate any spell you've read about in a splat book. You have to go out and find a scroll of that spell and copy it in your crafting spellbook.

[RNightstalker]

Meta omniscience means that if you're playing say, an artificer, you don't get to magically emulate any spell you've read about in a splat book. You have to go out and find a scroll of that spell and copy it in your crafting spellbook.

I would like to be able to build on that in my games. Everybody knows the Core books, but the supplements are uncommon and other things are rare so it'll take a little work to research for some of those builds.

[Xervous]

I would like to be able to build on that in my games. Everybody knows the Core books, but the supplements are uncommon and other things are rare so it'll take a little work to research for some of those builds.

Obligatory comment about how this disadvantages Martials.

[RNightstalker]

Obligatory comment about how this disadvantages Martials.

Maybe research was a bad word choice, I just want to RP the master coming in to teach about the PrC they want to use, or have them see someone use the spell they want to take next level.

[martixy]

I would like to be able to build on that in my games. Everybody knows the Core books, but the supplements are uncommon and other things are rare so it'll take a little work to research for some of those builds.

Another manifestation of this ban is that to polymorph in a creature, you need knowledge (check) and a piece of that creature. So if you want to transform into a big bad demon or some obscure fey with spellcasting talent, you need to hunt em down in the game world.

[Xervous]

Maybe research was a bad word choice, I just want to RP the master coming in to teach about the PrC they want to use, or have them see someone use the spell they want to take next level.

So I’d get more RP scenes served up due to my multiclass dipping than the single classed favored soul? Behold the dip-o-manner who comes to know and ally with more than a dozen organizations by taking a single level in various prestige classes.

[RNightstalker]

Another manifestation of this ban is that to polymorph in a creature, you need knowledge (check) and a piece of that creature. So if you want to transform into a big bad demon or some obscure fey with spellcasting talent, you need to hunt em down in the game world.

Now you're giving me ideas...:smallcool:


So I’d get more RP scenes served up due to my multiclass dipping than the single classed favored soul? Behold the dip-o-manner who comes to know and ally with more than a dozen organizations by taking a single level in various prestige classes.

Not necessarily have more RP scenes, and not necessarily allying with more than a dozen organizations, just because your character takes a one level dip...

[King of Nowhere]

The only workable dynamic is open communication with the goal of reaching a generally-acceptable consensus.

we fully agree on that.
so i would say the problem is not the exhistance of a ban list, but the communication or lack thereof


Another manifestation of this ban is that to polymorph in a creature, you need knowledge (check) and a piece of that creature. So if you want to transform into a big bad demon or some obscure fey with spellcasting talent, you need to hunt em down in the game world.

I would like to be able to build on that in my games. Everybody knows the Core books, but the supplements are uncommon and other things are rare so it'll take a little work to research for some of those builds.

depending on campaign and group, this can work, or it can backfire spectacularly. the problem with those rules is that they do not prevent the use of the broken material. they merely make it dependent on doing a sidequest first. the whole campaign could get derailed into "let's do sidequests to provide the wizard with his components", and then there would still be shapechange at full power.

[martixy]

depending on campaign and group, this can work, or it can backfire spectacularly. the problem with those rules is that they do not prevent the use of the broken material. they merely make it dependent on doing a sidequest first. the whole campaign could get derailed into "let's do sidequests to provide the wizard with his components", and then there would still be shapechange at full power.

This reads a bit like you're conflating shapechange at full power = spectacular backfire.

Disregarding nighty's questionable criteria, my own reasons have more to do with verisimilitude and less with limiting shapechange power.

[Feldar]

Another manifestation of this ban is that to polymorph in a creature, you need knowledge (check) and a piece of that creature. So if you want to transform into a big bad demon or some obscure fey with spellcasting talent, you need to hunt em down in the game world.

I actually limit druids to wild shaping into creatures they've encountered. They can try creatures related to creatures they have encountered, but may get it wrong. For example, if they go for zebra without having actually seen one they may get it wrong and have the stripes run horizontally.

The same applies to polymorph and its ilk.

[RNightstalker]

depending on campaign and group, this can work, or it can backfire spectacularly. the problem with those rules is that they do not prevent the use of the broken material. they merely make it dependent on doing a sidequest first. the whole campaign could get derailed into "let's do sidequests to provide the wizard with his components", and then there would still be shapechange at full power.

The broken material is still banned lol, I would like to try the different flavor of not assuming a PC knows everything published by WotC.



Disregarding nighty's questionable criteria, my own reasons have more to do with verisimilitude and less with limiting shapechange power.

lol am I "nighty's" now?

[vasilidor]

my ban list for pathfinder:

kineticist
monk
any race that cannot use tools
any race smaller than small or larger than large
any character unable to at least learn common.
any race with higher than 5+ CL for spell resistance.
spells, everything has been converted to spheres of power and spheres of might. must be using a class or class archetype that uses one or both of these things.
any race with a total of more than +6 to stats, any race that has more than a +4 to any one stat, any race
any race with more than a +3 to natural armor
I nerfed the magic mart while encouraging magic item creation for story purposes.
spells granted by class features or race features can be converted into bonus magic talents. no more than 2 for race features though.

balance is an illusion, but I like having some bounds on upper and lower character power limits.

[BettaGeorge]

This is so interesting! Do all of you play with "all books are allowed, and then we ban stuff"? Because in my groups it has always, always been the other way around:

Anything in PHB, DMG and I guess MM is "da rulez". Anything from any other source is "extra" and needs to be discussed with the DM, who decides on a case-by-case basis.

I have never had any complaints about this system, so I'm very surprised that it seems so unusual.

I'm thinking of adding the PHB2 to my default whitelist, but I haven't cleared that with my players yet.

That being said, my games always feature homebrew prestige classes tailored to the specific characters, so maybe that's why no one complains?

[Nifft]

This is so interesting! Do all of you play with "all books are allowed, and then we ban stuff"? Because in my groups it has always, always been the other way around:

Anything in PHB, DMG and I guess MM is "da rulez". Anything from any other source is "extra" and needs to be discussed with the DM, who decides on a case-by-case basis.

I have never had any complaints about this system, so I'm very surprised that it seems so unusual.

I'm thinking of adding the PHB2 to my default whitelist, but I haven't cleared that with my players yet.

That being said, my games always feature homebrew prestige classes tailored to the specific characters, so maybe that's why no one complains?

I'm with you -- whitelist on a per-campaign basis, to get different "palettes" in different games, and write homebrew specific to the characters. (They even get to put their names on stuff which shows up in future games.)

[Xervous]

This is so interesting! Do all of you play with "all books are allowed, and then we ban stuff"? Because in my groups it has always, always been the other way around:

That being said, my games always feature homebrew prestige classes tailored to the specific characters, so maybe that's why no one complains?

Yup, all books allowed before the listing of bans and build rejection/revision cycles begins. Homebrew applied as needed, though that was mainly condensing non casting prestige classes to fewer levels.

[Calthropstu]

Cheese is banned from my game.

I know it when I see it.

[Xervous]

Cheese is banned from my game.

I know it when I see it.

And crackers and chips and sugary drinks. Nobody wants your greasy dice smeared across the table.

[Cerefel]

I don't really ban anything these days, but I do help my players coordinate the power level of their characters for ease of encounter building. I also let my players know that I'd rather not have to figure out how to consistently challenge a party of all tier 0 characters, but if my players all really wanted a game at that power level I would be willing to figure something out.

[InvisibleBison]

Cheese is banned from my game.

I know it when I see it.

And do you have a way of explaining what sort of things you consider to be cheese, so that a player who wants to join a game you're running will be able to build a character appropriate for the game?

[Calthropstu]

And do you have a way of explaining what sort of things you consider to be cheese, so that a player who wants to join a game you're running will be able to build a character appropriate for the game?

Simple. Build it, and when you start doing something stupid powerful, I double check validity. Usually, it's a misinterpretation of the rules. If it is valid, I ban it. It's very rare that I have to ban anything. The player can then do a minor rebuild to replace the banned abilities.
After the 3rd time, I drop them. Only had to drop 2 players in 20 years because of this.

[martixy]

lol am I "nighty's" now?

Well, aren't you? :)

[RNightstalker]

Well, aren't you? :)

I guess I'll take that as a compliment lol

[unseenmage]

We tend to play pretty high end overall so our banned list is not very extensive.

No evil characters.
No PVP.
No epic.

We don't use resetting magic traps because they make things too easy.

We often ban simulacrum, binding, genesis, gate, and wish because they're just that potent a suite of superpowers.

We optimized through a game of Spheres of Power/Spheres of Might and likely won't ever use that again because it's just too wonky for power levels and rules loopholes. Some of which seems intentional, some of which certainly isn't.

Trompe L'oeil and Alter Ego templates are no longer allowed. More of a Simulacrum ban than anything. Same for Mirror Mephits.


When it strikes our fancy we do play with these toys. But its discussed pre game and usually set as a character goal tham as any kind of means to an end.


Oh! Also contracting rope plus ion tape plus tech grenades in PF games.
I'm not allowed to make automatic grenade setting off devices that are temperature activated.
Because that many grenades going off at once would kill us and the GM said if I use it, then so will they...

[Calthropstu]

We tend to play pretty high end overall so our banned list is not very extensive.

No evil characters.
No PVP.
No epic.

We don't use resetting magic traps because they make things too easy.

We often ban simulacrum, binding, genesis, gate, and wish because they're just that potent a suite of superpowers.

We optimized through a game of Spheres of Power/Spheres of Might and likely won't ever use that again because it's just too wonky for power levels and rules loopholes. Some of which seems intentional, some of which certainly isn't.

Trompe L'oeil and Alter Ego templates are no longer allowed. More of a Simulacrum ban than anything. Same for Mirror Mephits.


When it strikes our fancy we do play with these toys. But its discussed pre game and usually set as a character goal tham as any kind of means to an end.


Oh! Also contracting rope plus ion tape plus tech grenades in PF games.
I'm not allowed to make automatic grenade setting off devices that are temperature activated.
Because that many grenades going off at once would kill us and the GM said if I use it, then so will they...

See, this right here is what I'm talking about. You found it doesn't work at your tables, you all agreed and stopped it.
That's how it works.