3.5 advice requested

[gcb001]

Hello playgrounders, i am a DM for a 3.5 campaign and im trying to fine tune what works really well and what does not. However i am not very good at looking at things and seeing if they are broken/overpowered just by eye. This usually results in some of my players trying to do some cheese of some sort that i have to give them the look.

I am trying to compile a list of some of thing to look out for or just to ban outright so far i know about,

-Complete champion, some stuff just seems slightly odd in general and i have read around at some of the abuse available.

-Tome of Battle, which might seem controversial but to me a lot of it is not martial techniques and more spells fluffed to be martial techniques. (please note i am going to try a new fighter variant from homebrew that i like, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140278 to help the fighter become viable again)

could i please get some advice on other things to watch out for or just probably ban outright? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

edit for grammer

[Frosty]

Tip: Ban specific things in books instead of entire books.

[The Rabbler]

-Tome of Battle, which might seem controversial but to me a lot of it is not martial techniques and more spells fluffed to be martial techniques. (please note i am going to try a new fighter variant from homebrew that i like, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140278 to help the fighter become viable again)

this is what I never understand in people. ToB was designed to allow melee to be viable in general when compared with casters. several of the ablities are fluffed spells, but those spells are things that can only be replicated through magic. the idea with the whole thing was to make melee NOT fail compared to the combat effectiveness of just about any other caster (even sorcerers could easily do better than nearly any non-ToB melee'r; excluding uberchargers and the like, though the sorcerers would probably still do better).

some stuff looks cheesy at a glance, which is very true, but take a look at what casters can do. take a wizard for example; it can become almost any creature that it might want to, it can completely disarm threats in any number of ways, it can create failsafe after failsafe with no limit other that GP and imaginiation, and it can even re-write reality.

tl;dr: ToB was designed to make melee players much more playable when paired with casters. melee players can do some crazy stuff if built right. casters can do even more without having to make a complicated build.

[Godskook]

-Complete champion, some stuff just seems slightly odd in general and i have read around at some of the abuse available.

Specifically?

-Tome of Battle, which might seem controversial but to me a lot of it is not martial techniques and more spells fluffed to be martial techniques. (please note i am going to try a new fighter variant from homebrew that i like, http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140278 to help the fighter become viable again)

1.Maneuvers are not spells. Crunch-wise, they share zero spell-exclusive mechanics, while fluff-wise, maneuvers run the gamut from realistic(Heya, Counter-Charge!), to thematically appropriate(Such as Conan's Iron Heart Surge), to those that are indeed spell-ish in nature(Shadow Teleport line). The first two are appropriate to any fighter-type, and the last is mostly exclusive to the classes that actually are supposed to be getting semi-magical abilities.

2.Warblade is the only truly non-magical fighter from ToB, and he does a pretty good job of that. Most of his maneuvers and stances are oriented into doing the things real people can do, but better.

3.Crusader is a Paladin remake. Denying him spell-ish things is a clear denial of what the original already was.

4.Swordsage is an amalgam of monk/rogue/wizard. As a result, he should feel like you're playing something very mystical in nature. Some of their maneuvers are spells re-crunched, but you're common horizon walker can already teleport, so why not the swordsage?

5.Maneuvers *are* martial in nature in that they're learned through physical training, and using them well requires good physical stats.

6.ToB characters are more 'average' than their core counterparts. An unoptimized ToB character will be more powerful than a unoptimized core melee would. They're also more 'full' characters, having abilities that work outside combat as well, where-as your core fighter's best shot is Intimidate. On the high end, they're still only tier 3, compared to the full-caster's general lock on the two highest tiers(To present, I know of only one non-full caster to break their ranks, and that's Artificer).

could i please get some advice on other things to watch out for or just probably ban outright? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Read the ToS ban list. If you're players mention anything on that list, be concerned. Some of it is cheese-on-sight(such as Pazuzu), while other things need a bit more effort to break(Like Nightsticks). Ban the former, and hopefully house-rule the latter, preferably where the problems are.

[AslanCross]

I'd really be more worried about things like DMM Abuse with Nightsticks, Candles of Invocation, Pun-Pun, Anti-Osmium, Locate City Bombs, and flaw abuse rather than Tome of Battle. A lot of the maneuvers are "I hit things really hard" or "I throw him helluva far" which is pretty much the same as Power Attack, Bull Rush or Trip. Only two disciplines have outright spell-like maneuvers (Shadow Hand and Desert Wind)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

What Frosty said: it is much better, if not a little trickier to ban specific things within a book rather than the entire book itself. For example, Hulking Hurler is damned cheesy, but Complete Warrior itself is pretty much okay, so it stands to reason to ban the prestige class, not the book.

Also, ToB is all around solid. It allows melee to have nice things without making them OMGROLFPOWErD. Decent optimization will have a warblade tie a barbarian in damage. The barbarian may even beat the warblade, but the warblade at least has options outside of Mind Blank from a friendly caster to shrug off Dominate effects.

[gcb001]

good points, thank you

the complete champion stuff was more just reading some points about it, its inclusion was that i had heard that i needed to watch out for it :/ my bad if it sounded like i was bashing the whole book.

Tome of battle i guess is just a slight frustration with a player of mine who said he was going to play a martial character and then choose a rather odd combination of swordsage and other classes and he loves to do some of the more spell like maneuvers which just annoys me as im one of the weird people who love the idea of a fighter beating the piss out of something the "good old fashion way" lol. This might just be a first experience with the book and an odd player.

where exactly is the ToS ban list? (and whats the acronym stand for?) ive read it being referenced a few times but havent seen it.

once again thank you for the input

[Temotei]

(To present, I know of only one non-full caster to break their ranks, and that's Artificer).

Warmage? Beguiler?

[The Cat Goddess]

If you're unhappy about the weird, mystical stuff from ToB... simply dis-allow the SwordSage class.

Crusader still gets some unusual stuff... but very Paladin-flavor.

Warblade gets some powerful hits and White Raven Tactics is pretty cool... but nothing that is "supernatural" in nature.

[Seffbasilisk]

Personally, I avoid banning things, (aside from Psionics, but that's due to a want to have an arc later involving their introduction), and instead prefer to just simply let the rule stand: "Anything you want the PC's to have access to, the NPCs will also exploit, tweak, and break in that manner, or possibly better using the same allowances. These are disposable and on average, I want them to strike at you four times a day."

Which is a very wordy way of saying, a ban seems to be a rubber-stamp way of trying to solve a problem.

[Thurbane]

good points, thank you

the complete champion stuff was more just reading some points about it, its inclusion was that i had heard that i needed to watch out for it :/ my bad if it sounded like i was bashing the whole book.

Tome of battle i guess is just a slight frustration with a player of mine who said he was going to play a martial character and then choose a rather odd combination of swordsage and other classes and he loves to do some of the more spell like maneuvers which just annoys me as im one of the weird people who love the idea of a fighter beating the piss out of something the "good old fashion way" lol. This might just be a first experience with the book and an odd player.

where exactly is the ToS ban list? (and whats the acronym stand for?) ive read it being referenced a few times but havent seen it.

once again thank you for the input

Wow, you're banning ToB? Get ready for extreme turbulence! Just don't mention the "A" or "W" words.

FWIW, I'm right with on the good old fashioned beatdown approach to melee, but a lot of people seem to find it incredibly boring.

ToS = Test of Spite, a series of PvP arena battle threads on this very forum.

Also, some people will advocate that since core is, in and of itself, broken (by mid-high level casters), there is no point banning anything.

Ban lists can be problematic, in that clever CO types will always find something to break that you didn't speficially ban. Best option may be to discuss your players' builds with them in advance, and see if there is anything likely to be problematic to your specific game, in terms of power levels and/or thematics.

[Godskook]

Warmage? Beguiler?

Neither is a tier 2 or 1 class.

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

@OP

Test of Spite ban list:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135097

And as far as "good old-fashioned way" goes, 3.5 by design does away with anything 'realistic' by about L5. If you want effective melee beyond that level, you'll need to look at anime for inspiration, such as One Piece, Bleach, or Dragonball Z.

For instance, look at Zoro from One Piece, one of the most intense 'swordsman' in the series. He can:

-'Shoot' his sword attack at-range like bullets, enabling him to engage foes that are beyond his mundane reach.
-Create whirlwind effects that force trip/bullrush/knockback type checks, despite never striking anyone.
-Move faster the naked untrained eye can percieve.
-'Sense' the 'breath' of things, enabling him to perceive weak points on people's bodies and locate his weapons mentally.
-Deflect bullets with swords.
-Project sword slashes long enough to cut objects deeper than his sword's length in a single slice.

[Thurbane]

Personally, I avoid banning things, (aside from Psionics, but that's due to a want to have an arc later involving their introduction), and instead prefer to just simply let the rule stand: "Anything you want the PC's to have access to, the NPCs will also exploit, tweak, and break in that manner, or possibly better using the same allowances. These are disposable and on average, I want them to strike at you four times a day."

In my experience, though, this can lead to some serious "arms-race" issues where the PCs and DM try to outdo each other with outlandish and cheesy tricks and builds. IMHO, this can ruin the atmosphere of a campaign quite quickly...though of course, some groups do enjoy this type of play style, seeing it as a strategic challenge.

[Seffbasilisk]

In my experience, though, this can lead to some serious "arms-race" issues where the PCs and DM try to outdo each other with outlandish and cheesy tricks and builds. IMHO, this can ruin the atmosphere of a campaign quite quickly...though of course, some groups do enjoy this type of play style, seeing it as a strategic challenge.

Not so much. Now we have an unspoken truce, as it's widely regarded that I hold the nukes in such a war. In a way, it's the MAD defense. Breaking a character, just ruins the fun of the game. If there's no way to lose, there's no challenge.

[Prodan]

For instance, look at Zoro from One Piece, one of the most intense 'swordsman' in the series. He can:

-'Shoot' his sword attack at-range like bullets, enabling him to engage foes that are beyond his mundane reach.
-Create whirlwind effects that force trip/bullrush/knockback type checks, despite never striking anyone.
-Move faster the naked untrained eye can percieve.
-'Sense' the 'breath' of things, enabling him to perceive weak points on people's bodies and locate his weapons mentally.
-Deflect bullets with swords.
-Project sword slashes long enough to cut objects deeper than his sword's length in a single slice.

And wield a sword in his teeth.

[Pluto]

Hello playgrounders, i am a DM for a 3.5 campaign and im trying to fine tune what works really well and what does not. However i am not very good at looking at things and seeing if they are broken/overpowered just by eye. This usually results in some of my players trying to do some cheese of some sort that i have to give them the look.

Along the lines of what Thurbane said, if you're relying on ban lists to keep the game fun, you're going to be disappointed. Especially if you maintain classes like the Cleric or the Wizard. Players who want to break the game will keep breaking the game; it's a matter of player goals and expectations, not character class.

That said, I'm a big fan of the Monk/Fighter/mundane fighting class fix that you're using.
It is outrageously splendid.






If you want blanket bans to put characters on a more or less predictable and balanced power level, you might disallow every base class printed outside the Expanded Psionic Handbook and the Tome of Battle. (Remember that Soulknife is an NPC class; it's just not explicitly labeled as such.) EPH and ToB classes optimize themselves and do so to a much more moderate degree than the extreme highs and lows of the player's handbook.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Ban lists can be problematic, in that clever CO types will always find something to break that you didn't speficially ban. Best option may be to discuss your players' builds with them in advance, and see if there is anything likely to be problematic to your specific game, in terms of power levels and/or thematics.

CO=/=TO. CO is making an effective character for the game: either a fighter who does damage and has tricks, a GOD-type caster who raises his comrades to new heights, or what have-you. TO involves the 1d2 crusader, Pun-Pun, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu and others.

There is a big difference between the two. TO is a thought experiment, not meant for the common game. CO is for practical purposes. If a player is bringing TO into a game, the problem lies with the person, not the quantum box.

[gcb001]

hmmm you guys are certainly giving me alot of food for thought, for that i sincerely thank you.

The one player in particular that im having issues with is the kind who loves to find the best way to numerically wreck havoc (he does not quite reach the level of munchkin but has gotten close). normally if it was a group of players like this i wouldn't have too many problems. Thing is that he is the only one out of a total of 6 players to do this. So its him, and then 5 other people actually trying to play the game with flavor and very little optimization (for awhile this group had a healbot cleric for instance). Apart from him the biggest damage dealers are a duskblade and a bowman fighter.

Its starting to sound like i just need to not worry about books or specific things and more worry about the players :/ i guess i was looking a quick fix to a deeper issue.

Be proud playgrounders! you have saved a DM from a possible serious mistake thanks again and any other advice will still be greatly appreciated and looked up on

[Divide by Zero]

Warmage? Beguiler?

Both of which are full casters (unless I've been understanding it wrong all this time, a full caster is any class that gets 9th level spells).

To the OP: one thing you should do is ask your players to just not intentionally make cheesy characters. If they do so anyway, you likely have bigger issues than just banning stuff. If your players can agree to keep their power at a reasonable level, you might not need to ban anything at all. It works well for my groups (one DM bans psionics because he doesn't like the fluff for some reason, but that's it).

[Keld Denar]

If you want to check in on your players, one thing you can do is make sure they cite all of their sources (book, page number), and you come here and post their character's class levels, feats, spells/abilities, and equipment. We can EASILY tell you if something isn't legal, or is legal but outside the realm of respectable play, and why. Then you can go back and talk to your players and ask why they chose something and what they expect to do with it. If their intent is to break the game or abuse a mechanic, THEN you as the DM have the right to disallow it.

Think of us as a review board of accountants that check your taxes. Except we do it for fun. And free.

[Telonius]

So far I haven't had to deal with any gamebreakers. I generally work at it two ways: in character and out of character, both through house rules.

First, nerf the over-powered. DMM doesn't exist, specific egregious spells and feat combinations are banned, all Druids are shapeshift, among other things.

Then, bump up the less powerful. Monks get a significant power boost, Dungeoncrasher is encouraged, Ranger steals the Druid's companion, ToB is allowed, Half-Orcs lose the Charisma penalty, Half-Elves choose either the feat or the extra skill points, etc.

Finally, tie up the loose ends in-character. In my games, Pun-Pun has already ascended, and is the over-deity of the universe. Since he has an arbitrary amount of wisdom, he's realized that he's a fictional character in a game, and is having fun just playing along. He'll personally prevent any character from using an overpowered ability. If he has to, he'll dispense a Phylactery of Brokenness (shaped like a little cheese wheel) to people who skirt the line. (I've never had to take this step, but it's in reserve if I need it).

EDIT: Forgot the most important thing - I make absolutely sure that the players are aware of this stuff at the outset. First session of the game, I take a little time to make sure everybody knows it, and everybody knows that the whole gaming group knows it.

[Person_Man]

There's almost nothing written that will completely break a game. No matter how powerful your players are, as DM you can always throw more powerful encounters at them. The only real problems occurs when Player One wants to be a very powerful build, and Player Two wants to be a very weak build. This problem can be solved by asking Player One to tone down his spell/power/maneuver/etc selection down, and/or by giving Player Two help optimizing his build and/or by giving Player Two treasure that perfectly fits what he wants to do.

[ghost_warlock]

The one player in particular that im having issues with is the kind who loves to find the best way to numerically wreck havoc (he does not quite reach the level of munchkin but has gotten close). normally if it was a group of players like this i wouldn't have too many problems. Thing is that he is the only one out of a total of 6 players to do this. So its him, and then 5 other people actually trying to play the game with flavor and very little optimization (for awhile this group had a healbot cleric for instance). Apart from him the biggest damage dealers are a duskblade and a bowman fighter. :

You may want to talk with him specifically about his motivation. It may be that he's just trying to make an effective character, whereas everyone else is playing the casual gamer. He may even feel like he has to make such a character in order to carry the other characters through encounters they'd otherwise be slaughtered by - a TPK isn't really fun for anyone.

[Kaiyanwang]

There's almost nothing written that will completely break a game. No matter how powerful your players are, as DM you can always throw more powerful encounters at them. The only real problems occurs when Player One wants to be a very powerful build, and Player Two wants to be a very weak build. This problem can be solved by asking Player One to tone down his spell/power/maneuver/etc selection down, and/or by giving Player Two help optimizing his build and/or by giving Player Two treasure that perfectly fits what he wants to do.

Be careful. You are using common sense in the internet.

[Godskook]

The one player in particular that im having issues with is the kind who loves to find the best way to numerically wreck havoc (he does not quite reach the level of munchkin but has gotten close). normally if it was a group of players like this i wouldn't have too many problems. Thing is that he is the only one out of a total of 6 players to do this. So its him, and then 5 other people actually trying to play the game with flavor and very little optimization (for awhile this group had a healbot cleric for instance). Apart from him the biggest damage dealers are a duskblade and a bowman fighter.

What's the problem player's build, and what kind of numbers is he throwing out there?

[Glimbur]

Both of which are full casters (unless I've been understanding it wrong all this time, a full caster is any class that gets 9th level spells).

Tier one and two classes are all full casters, except the Artificer. This does not mean that every full caster is tier one or two.

[Thurbane]

CO=/=TO. CO is making an effective character for the game: either a fighter who does damage and has tricks, a GOD-type caster who raises his comrades to new heights, or what have-you. TO involves the 1d2 crusader, Pun-Pun, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu and others.

There is a big difference between the two. TO is a thought experiment, not meant for the common game. CO is for practical purposes. If a player is bringing TO into a game, the problem lies with the person, not the quantum box.

Yes, that was my intention, I worded it badly...I did mean to go back and edit it, but I got sidettracked.