[3.x.x] Banlists, and how you feel about them?

[Doc Roc]

So, as you know, I run the test of spite, and have for almost three seasons now. It's slowed down, but still going, so I don't see this changing any time soon. However, a lot of people have raised methodological concerns, and some have been very vehement. I wanted to get a chance to hear them out, and to read about what they think exactly and why. I'll try to keep up with the running discussion as best I can.

TL;DR:
How do you feel about banlists?
In general?
Why?
About the ToS Banlist specifically?

[Mushroom Ninja]

I'm in favor of banlists if they are well-thought-out, enhance the game experience, and aren't too restrictive. Arbitrary, ineffective, and random bannings (which I've had to deal with all too often IRL) annoy me to no end. Something like the ToS banlist, (which has been tested again and again by optimization and is constantly being reconsidered), appeals to me greatly.

[Yukitsu]

They are necessary to facillitate any semblence of reasonable play when there are abusive people around. They aren't needed when no one is trying any funny stuff.

Ban lists should never ban based on source (except third party, which requires too much work) but should ban parts of a source. Even the BoVD has some laurels to it, even if certain parts are really broken.

The ToS one is pretty good for its intended functions, but can be a bit broad given its vs. nature. It means the people who win are the ones that have the broadest knowledge, which I think undermines some of the interest. I prefer vs. matches to have more restrictive sources than normal.

[arguskos]

TL;DR:

How dare you say that about my mother?!

How do you feel about banlists?

Depends on the- oh wait, more questions.

In general?

As long as they are explained and open to debate, I am generally fine with them.

Why?

Well, each DM has a unique vision of their world and many times certain things just don't fit in it, meaning it gets banned. This is natural and fine.

About the ToS Banlist specifically?

That's another story. Personally, I find it a bit much, but given that everything has a reason, I'm not gonna say anything about it. I'd like to see everything explained though, so I can keep up on all the dirty tricks and know what I would personally permit/ban (since I reference the ToS ban list for my games).

[Mushroom Ninja]

Having re-checked the ToS Banlist, I have a couple of nitpicks:

• Aptitude Weapons Banned: I know Olo used them in his epic lightning maces build, but outside of that, do they really break the game?
• Battle Jump Banned: Doesn't melee need all the help it can get?
• UA Racial Varients not on the Allow List: Sure some of them are strong, but are they that bad?
• Vorpal Banned: Is there some abuse I don't know about?
• All clerics are Cloistered Clerics: Why?
• Mention of Sarrukh Requires Home Address: Shouldn't a photo, name, fingerprint, and license plate number be included as well, just to facilitate the punitive actions.

I'm sure most of these have good reasons I'm not aware of, but, ignorant as I am, the above seem a little odd to me.

[arguskos]

I'm sure most of these have good reasons I'm not aware of, but, ignorant as I am, the above seem a little odd to me.

You just hit on my big issue with the ToS list: there is no explanation. At all. It's just "X, Y, and Z are banned or will get you eaten by the hounds." This turns off a LOT of folks, who might like to see the explanations.

[Mushroom Ninja]

You just hit on my big issue with the ToS list: there is no explanation. At all. It's just "X, Y, and Z are banned or will get you eaten by the hounds." This turns off a LOT of folks, who might like to see the explanations.

It should be noted that, if you have the time to look through the ToS threads, you'll find some of the discussions that gave rise to some bannings, but that takes forever.

[Pluto]

I don't like banlists in normal games. D&D isn't a competition and players are very able to talk with one another about their intentions and expectations.

In situations like the Test of Spite (when D&D is a competition), ban lists are a good thing.

As far as the specific ToS rules in the ToS, I don't have any objections except the Fighter ban. (I'm assuming anyone entering the ToS knows what to expect of the class.)

I would object to the ToS rules being placed into a campaign I was playing. Shapeshifting is fun. Demon summoning is fun. Fusion is just neat. Balance is not nearly as important as nifty effects.

[arguskos]

It should be noted that, if you have the time to look through the ToS threads, you'll find some of the discussions that gave rise to some bannings, but that takes forever.

Oh, I've read all of them, and posted occasionally. I've watched many of the fights. I STILL don't know why some stuff is on that list. While I could ask, this doesn't diminish the fact that an observer with no account or a brand-new DM curious about good houserules will not only lack the knowledge I have, but probably will be too intimidated to get involved and ask/figure it out.

Better to explain things with a sentence or two than to just expect folks to figure it out, since it's often not obvious.

[Zeful]

I don't like banlists in normal games. D&D isn't a competition and players are very able to talk with one another about their intentions and expectations.

Situation: As above.

Problem:
1: Player A, wants to play a heroic swordsman. Begins stating up a paladin
a: Player B points out the Crusader class as a better paladin [citation needed].
b:Player A does not own the ToB, has not heard of the Class and does not want to learn an entire new ruleset.
ba: DM share's Player A's sentiments, and lacks the money to buy the book.
c: Player B, incredulous, begins to swear up and down that ToB is the only thing that can balance melee against casters.
d: DM heavily nerfs casters.
f: Things snowball from there.

Yeah, talking leads to so many great and wonderful understandings (mainly the sentiment that everyone else is an idiot).

[Pluto]

Yeah, talking leads to so many great and wonderful understandings (mainly the sentiment that everyone else is an idiot).

Or, y'know, player A rolls up a Cleric.

[Zeful]

Or, y'know, player A rolls up a Cleric.

Which player b failed to mention.

[Arutema]

Mention of Sarrukh Requires Home Address: Shouldn't a photo, name, fingerprint, and license plate number be included as well, just to facilitate the punitive actions.

Home address is sufficient for nuking the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[arguskos]

Or, y'know, player A rolls up a Cleric.

Cleric =/= Heroic Swordsman. Just sayin'.

However, Zeful, there's a bunch of other ways that could go. Player B could go, "Oh, ok. Thought I'd mention it." and move on. Player B could actually open a reasonable discussion of alternate rules, and perhaps teach his friends the new system (everyone wins that way). Player B could actually suggest something else, like the Knight, in response. Lots of ways that could go, it's not always "bleargh ToB RAWRZ"* and drama everywhere.

*: I want to see a ToB thread where everyone just plays up stereotypes and we all have a great many laughs. That'd be entertaining.

[Eldariel]

Aptitude Weapons Banned: I know Olo used them in his epic lightning maces build, but outside of that, do they really break the game?

They work as not intended (there are few other things that ensure constant Daze and such). The principal issue is that the ability is meant to just apply weapon specific feats that could apply to the weapon to the weapon with the ability; much like the Aptitude-ability itself.

However, what they do is they allow applying any weapon-specific ability to any weapon which generates problems like applying an ability multiplied on criticals to a weapon with 18-20/x2 base critical range generating some issues.

UA Racial Varients not on the Allow List: Sure some of them are strong, but are they that bad?

"Strictly better than base creature" is the issue, I'd wager.

[*]Vorpal Banned: Is there some abuse I don't know about?

You can take 20 on an attack roll by using e.g. Surge of Fortune.

[*]All clerics are Cloistered Clerics: Why?

Purely a matter of sensibility, I'd wager; to make Clerics Clerics, not Paladins.


As for the OP, I'm fine with banlists, particularly within context of an online game, but I prefer fix lists; generally few things are broken by intent/lack fair guise and as such, I prefer rewriting things to make them work instead of just banning them.


For example, changing shape to another creature is such an archetypal part of fantasy that I just cannot with good conscience make it impossible/completely superficial. That Polymorph is too good cannot mean such change is completely unacquirable.

Even permanent change has to be possible (again, too archetypal a part of fantasy to ban); it's just a matter of finding the balance between how big a change is doable without making it a no-brainer and breaking the game balance while still maintaining the feel of becoming precisely what you turn into.

Same with calling Outsiders; Planar Binding-spells and Gate is broken on principle, but they're too important a part of fantasy to flat out remove the ability from the game. Gates have to be created somehow too. I, again, prefer fixing the broken mechanics here.

Of course, there's stuff like Simulacrum nobody will miss (though that should be relatively easy to gain in a fair guise; the issue is that the "half-strength" thing doesn't apply to everything and that the XP cost is bypassable), but mostly I loathe to ban iconic parts of fantasy; of course, bunch of broken PrCs deserve no second looks as long as all the key archetypes are filled by the core classes and the PrCs and refluffing, but for example I really pity the difficulty of creating a fair, and yet useful Polymorph, and particularly Polymorph Any Object (the source of all the related issues due to being potentially permanent, and yet such a key part of everything).

I'm of the school that it's not the players' responsibility to know what's broken and what is not and have to all the time monitor their power with relation to the rest of the party; rules should be such that you don't accidentally break the game when playing by them. But plain banning is...last resort, in my opinion, though of course easiest solution especially on the intermediary stage when seeking the solution.

[Zeful]

Cleric =/= Heroic Swordsman. Just sayin'.

However, Zeful, there's a bunch of other ways that could go. Player B could go, "Oh, ok. Thought I'd mention it." and move on. Player B could actually open a reasonable discussion of alternate rules, and perhaps teach his friends the new system (everyone wins that way). Player B could actually suggest something else, like the Knight, in response. Lots of ways that could go, it's not always "bleargh ToB RAWRZ"* and drama everywhere.

*: I want to see a ToB thread where everyone just plays up stereotypes and we all have a great many laughs. That'd be entertaining.

True, player B was an intentional exaggeration of a worst case scenario just to demonstrate how talking could fail miserably. Not that it would, most people are far more reasonable in person than over the interwebs.

[FishAreWet]

I'm okay with them. I think the ToS ban list is one of the best I've seen. My only is the ban of Dragon Magazine. I figure this ban is more due to the difficulty of acquiring and then spot banning features from these, and less due to the silly "Dragon Magazine is overpowered!" rumors that get thrown around. Is this true?

Although not part of the 'banlist' I do really like Intimidate not being Mind-Affecting and Undead not being immune to Mind-Affecting. It simply opens up so many character possibilities without overpowering... anything.

I don't mind it not having explanations, but that's largely because I know enough about 3.5 to recognize each ban for what it is. For an arena I think this is okay. In a game with friends, explanation should be given.

In general, banlists need to operate under the presumption that everything is being used to the best of it's advantage. This largest disadvantage of this is when someone wants to use a feature for a less optimized purpose but cannot due to it's ban. I try to avoid these situations by making bans specific. i.e. aptitude only effects feats which require you to pick a specific weapon

[Olo Demonsbane]

Having re-checked the ToS Banlist, I have a couple of nitpicks:
Aptitude Weapons Banned: I know Olo used them in his epic lightning maces build, but outside of that, do they really break the game?

I have another build that uses them to force about 5 different saves on each attack. And it gets on average 20 attacks per round. Trust me aptitude weapons are no good.

Battle Jump Banned: Doesn't melee need all the help it can get?

Again, 6 full attacks each round easily. Not really a good idea.

UA Racial Varients not on the Allow List: Sure some of them are strong, but are they that bad?

Huh, didn't know about this one...

Vorpal Banned: Is there some abuse I don't know about?

Surge of Fortune. Cleric 6 spell from Comp Champ. Gives you an auto 20.

All clerics are Cloistered Clerics: Why?

I'm not quite sure on this one...

Also, since I posted something about this on the ToS main thread, linky

[tyckspoon]

I'm okay with them. I think the ToS ban list is one of the best I've seen. My only is the ban of Dragon Magazine. I figure this ban is more due to the difficulty of acquiring and then spot banning features from these, and less due to the silly "Dragon Magazine is overpowered!" rumors that get thrown around. Is this true?

I believe so, yes- it's a huge body of material to work with when taken in total, and the pieces are scattered across literally hundreds of separate articles and issues. If there were something like the 4E Character Builder that organized and referenced all the Dragon material there'd at least be a place to start with it, but as is Dragon is best approached as opt-in material that defaults to not allowed.

Edit: I think the Cloistered Cleric thing was done as a concept-separation/setting effect thing; it makes Clerics more distinct from Paladins, Crusaders, and all the other Holy Warrior-type classes and prestiges. Not all of the ToS changes are strictly balance based- remember that part of the goal is also to generate a set of rules alterations that makes a more sane D&D, in which case you don't want Clerics covering the same conceptual ground as Paladins with strictly superior mechanics.

[arguskos]

I believe so, yes- it's a huge body of material to work with when taken in total, and the pieces are scattered across literally hundreds of separate articles and issues. If there were something like the 4E Character Builder that organized and referenced all the Dragon material there'd at least be a place to start with it, but as is Dragon is best approached as opt-in material that defaults to not allowed.

As the ToS ban list stands, it's NOT opt-in, it's just banned, period.

[Mando Knight]

Surge of Fortune. Cleric 6 spell from Comp Champ. Gives you an auto 20.

And even without it, a nat 20 means HEADSHOT. Test of Spite isn't meant to be "5% chance of total obliteration."

[Godskook]

How do you feel about banlists?
In general?

They're the 'easy' way. They simply remove things rather than fix them. The medical equivalent would be to shoot the patient. However, this is sometimes the most appropriate response.

Why?

Because some examples, even on the ToS banlist, can be fixed, but instead, the baby goes out with the bathwater. Lightning Maces has always bugged me as an example of this, and now's as good a time as any to mention what I thought should've been done:

"Whenever a feat trigger grants you a bonus attack, this bonus attack can not grant additional bonus attacks unless specifically stated otherwise"

This should nerf lightning maces back down into a reasonable feat, and keep any similar feats from getting out of hand as well. On the other hand, it doesn't affect combat reflexes, as the trigger for AoOs is not a part of the feat's rule text, but rather the generalized AoO rules.

About the ToS Banlist specifically?

I've referenced the list quite a few times as a very valuable DMing tool, but I never suggest that people actually implement it wholesale. Does that help?

The most egregious example of where I disagree with it is the banning of Focused Specialist. I won't go into the details of my opinions on the subject here, but suffice to say, I find the option provides a better penalty to specialization than core specialization does.

I also am not convinced that nightsticks need to not stack. I think the problem here is more involved with DMM(Persist) than nightsticks.

[Eldariel]

Again, 6 full attacks each round easily. Not really a good idea.

It's again poorly written. If it only allowed making a charge attack (by y'know, taking the charge action) through falling instead of jumping, it'd be fine. As it is, obviating the action requirement is an issue, though it's kinda unclear what exactly it does either way (I always read it as "if you take an attack action after falling on a guy, it's a charge" which would allow it to effectively convert standard action into a charge attack though that's already possible with Boots of Battle Charger...though they require swift action to activate).

[Set]

For example, changing shape to another creature is such an archetypal part of fantasy that I just cannot with good conscience make it impossible/completely superficial. That Polymorph is too good cannot mean such change is completely unacquirable.

Same with calling Outsiders; Planar Binding-spells and Gate is broken on principle, but they're too important a part of fantasy to flat out remove the ability from the game. Gates have to be created somehow too. I, again, prefer fixing the broken mechanics here.

And, IMO, the problem with both of these issues has nothing to do with the transformation spells or the summoning / calling spells, it has to do with the fact that a fair number of monsters have abilities that nobody in their right mind would want a PC to have (like Create Spawn or Grant Wish or Feed or Split or the ability to gain infinite Con by being hit by lightning or even a simple +5 NA bonus at 1 HD).

Calling / summoning spells and polymorph / wild shape will never be 'fixable' so long as Barghests and Efreeti and Black Puddings and War Trolls and Solars and Shadows have ridonkulous abilities, in some cases, built-in infinite loop abilities.

And they are just the tip of the iceberg. A well-built Diplomacy user can *convince* such a creature to use it's abusive abilities in accordance with his wishes. An Enchanter can dominate or otherwise enthrall a creature to do so. Anyone can take Leadership and try to recruit such a beastie as their cohort. Savage Species-type games allow for a PC to potentially *play* such a beastie, with powers that might be an interesting challenge for the 36 seconds it is going to survive on the field of battle, but are game-wrecking if the beastie survives and goes on to, for instance, turn an entire village into Shadows under it's command.

And all of that assumes that the beastie has to be convinced by a PC to use it's abilities intelligently (i.e. in a way that would break the game). An Efreeti is plenty smart enough to enslave some mortal and force it to 'accept' three Wishes a day worded to benefit the Efeeti without anyone Calling it or Planar Shepherd-abuse Wild Shaping into it or making a DC 40 Diplomacy check against it and turning it into a wide-eyed fanboi, eager to shower it's new best friend with Wishes to prove its eternal devotion.

Polymorph, Summoning and Enchantment are all classics of the fantasy genre, as is using a silver tongue to trick a beastie into doing something that ends up in the clever heroes best interest (monsters as PCs or gaining the services of beasties through Leadership, not so much, although examples do exist), and all of them are doomed to remain crippled so long as the critters you can turn into, call forth or make your cuddle-monkey are gifted with abilities that are wildly inappropriate.

Wild Shape / Gate bans detract from the genre. The bans should be on Efreeti granting *Wish spells* and similar nonsense. The story of Aladdin has a genie flat out saying, 'I can't do that' to Aladdin, so it's totally in keeping with the fantasy tradition for a genies 'wish' to be something more along the lines of a *service,* and not a 9th level Sorcerer/Wizard spell.

Instead of banning stuff in the PHB, I'd be running through the Monster Manual with my red pen. No Create Spawn. No Feed. No infinite Con from lightning. No free Wishes.

[Eldariel]

Calling / summoning spells and polymorph / wild shape will never be 'fixable' so long as Barghests and Efreeti and Black Puddings and War Trolls and Solars and Shadows have ridonkulous abilities, in some cases, built-in infinite loop abilities.

Actually, it's possible as long as these spells in a way or another prevent access to those abilities. It is...possible to write the spells in such a way that at the very least, accessing those abilities is more trouble than it's worth.

Monsters' abilities don't have to be granted fully through those spells...though modifying the monstrous abilities somewhat to be less stupid might be a good idea anyways. In my opinion though, there are so many of them that it's just plain too much work to go through every book with monsters and rewrite them to be balanced for player-use.

Polymorph doesn't need to grant you Str 26 for you to feel a Remorhaz, it simply needs to make you strong. The character has no way of knowing exactly how strong a Remorhaz is and it's fully possible that replicating such a creature is complex enough that the Wizard simply isn't skilled enough to provide the full power the form could have.

And calling...well, as long as "calling"-spells merely call creatures instead of compelling them to service, most problems are averted. As long as there's risk to the whole "calling"-cycle, you cannot just repeat it ad nauseam to reap benefits. Though obviously, SLAs themselves need some kinds of limitations and Wish should not be able to produce a Candle of Invocation (in its present guise) thank you VERY much or overall, looping itself in any way.

[sofawall]

I also am not convinced that nightsticks need to not stack. I think the problem here is more involved with DMM(Persist) than nightsticks.

DMM:Quicken is another huge offender. DMM in general makes it quite easy to do annoying things for a very low cost, especially when someone with access to the Wizard/Sorcerer list casts as Divine (There are a few ways), or someone with Divine casting accesses the Wizard/Sorcerer list (Archivist, anyone?), combined with a method of granting Turn Undead to a non-Cleric Class (there is more than one way).

[Godskook]

DMM:Quicken is another huge offender. DMM in general makes it quite easy to do annoying things for a very low cost, especially when someone with access to the Wizard/Sorcerer list casts as Divine (There are a few ways), or someone with Divine casting accesses the Wizard/Sorcerer list (Archivist, anyone?), combined with a method of granting Turn Undead to a non-Cleric Class (there is more than one way).

Ok, let me rephrase that as "The problem lies with DMM(feat), not Nightsticks" Which is a derivative of the over-arching meta-reducer balance issue that's a plague on pretty much every feat and prestige class associated with the mechanic of making metamagic easier. I wonder how much of it would get solved by simply ruling that you must be able to cast the spell without reducers to cast it with them(The only game I'm DMing so far hasn't gotten nearly high enough to think about metamagic so I've yet to see anyone try and break it).

[IonDragon]

I agree with the general consensus.

How do you feel about banlists in general?

I feel a banlist is superior to an "allow list," in much the same way that a rules errata illustrates changes, rather than what stays the same.

Why?

Many reasons. It's faster, it lets you slowly build one over time rather than reviewing everything a player wants to take every time they build a character (again, faster), easier to keep track of. And the big one: It does not limit what you can play any more than any other system, it's just easier to use. An 'allow list' could be said to have "a banlist consisting of everything, EXCEPT: This, That, and The Other".

Usually, you're going to have more allowed than banned.

About the ToS Banlist specifically?

I have not found that it limits my options in any way thus far.

[Jon_Dahl]

I love banlists.
I think players who don't accept banlists are poor players and I'm happy not to play with them.

Few cold facts:
1. DM has to enjoy the game as much you do. If he isn't happy about something, don't force it. If the option A is not available, take option B.
2. Good player plays human commoner and feels happy about it. Period.
3. Read #2 again.
4. In life you just can't have everything you want. Don't be such a crybaby.
5. Rules that are same for everyone are good rules.
6. D&D has lot of broken stuff and things that don't fit all campaigns. Live with it.

Personally I ban lot of things and thanks to GitP I've found lot of new stuff to ban.

[Divide by Zero]

Situation: As above.

Problem:
1: Player A, wants to play a heroic swordsman. Begins stating up a paladin
a: Player B points out the Crusader class as a better paladin [citation needed].
b:Player A does not own the ToB, has not heard of the Class and does not want to learn an entire new ruleset.
ba: DM share's Player A's sentiments, and lacks the money to buy the book.
c: Player B, incredulous, begins to swear up and down that ToB is the only thing that can balance melee against casters.
d: DM heavily nerfs casters.
f: Things snowball from there.

Yeah, talking leads to so many great and wonderful understandings (mainly the sentiment that everyone else is an idiot).

I don't know what kind of people you play with, but no group I've played with has ever had a ban list, no character I've made has ever been turned down except for campaign-specific reasons (inappropriate race, etc.), and despite the fact that typically 1-3 people optimize way above the rest of the group, power disparity has never been an issue. Remember, it's just a game. You're only doing it wrong if you're not having fun.