[3.5] What are your guidelines for if something should be allowed?

[Endarire]

[color=blueIntro[/color]
Let's assume you're the DM.

Someone- possibly you is pondering whether X should be allowed in your game.

What are your guidelines to determine whether it should be allowed?

Mine
1: No gaining spells or powers sooner than a full Wizard, Cleric, Druid, or Psion.

Ur-Priest is OK, but the soonest you can enter is L9 instead of L6. Beholder Mage access depends on the campaign, but it still requires 9HD.

2: Getting more actions per turn or day is OK. Getting too many- a subjective quantity- is bad.

A Belt of Battle is OK. Hustle, haste, and schism are OK. Synchronicity, even with Linked Power, is usually OK. Time stop is OK, eventually.

Planar Shepherd with his 10 rounds per 1 round of me is bad.

3: No infinite loops. No nearly infinite loops.
This should be assumed, but I'm being certain.

The "nearly infinite" clause is also subjective.

4: Weak abilities that someone greatly wants get powered up.
Occult Slayer (Complete Warrior) has spiffy ideas, but predates Tome of Battle. I modified Occult Slayer for my group to grant Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and White Raven maneuver/stance access, and expanded the class skill list.

I also redid many of the PHB feats to be viable and scaling. Dodge gives +3 dodge AC against all targets, and +1 more per 3 HD you have. Weapon Focus gives +3 accuracy and +1 more per 4 BAB you have.

[TakeABow]

That is a rather enormous bonus to both Dodge and Weapon Focus (And Weapon Focus wasn't exactly terrible on its own - +5% hit chance seems relevant all the time if you are attacking)

As far as what I legalize:

I tend to allow anything non-casting related, since the problems usually come from spells. Caster-wise, I just ban things that grant absurd action economy, spell levels ahead of where you could normally get them, and all the weird tricky ways to cast a spell higher than your actual spell slots.

Or any loops or near-loops.

[Shade Kerrin]

1: No early entry tricks
2: No taking options that will interfere with the rest of the party's ability to operate.

Beyond that, anything's really fine, on the condition that I get to review it first.

[Urpriest]

My biggest guideline is that things should stay within the game's design principles. In 4e there are a lot of obvious ones (bonuses to hit are rare, multi-attacks are rare, etc.). In 3.5 you can still dig them up though. For example, PrC requirements are pretty obviously just a code for level requirements, so early entry almost always falls foul of my guidelines.

[Endarire]

Early entry allowance depends on the ability. Paragnostic Apostle (Complete Champion) has easy entry reqs and no outrageous abilities.

Ur-Priest, Beholder Mage, and fast casting classes have a big 'No!' for early entry. These are the exceptions, however.

[Crosswinds]

Frankly, I expect players to be reasonable with their characters. Optimization is fine, but as soon as you break out the Cheese Platter, you're fighting the Emerald Legion.

On a more on-topic note:

No Planar Shepherd (in fact, it's the only class I outright ban)
No Early Entry Tricks
No 'One-man parties'
None of those spells that make me curl into the fetal position and cry. (Shivering touch, for example)

I also greatly encourage taking Swordsage and Warblade over Monk and Fighter, respectively, but I won't ban the PHB classes.

[gbprime]

When I run, I cap things at mid Teir 3 effectiveness. I have what I refer to as "The Jewel Rule", after a former PC in my campaign, and I gauge the PC's against that.

The idea is simple. Take a single class barbarian with max strength and a 2 handed sword. Level her up and figure she gets a +2 str boost every 4 levels, a +1 weapon enhancement every 4 levels, haste starting at level 5, size large at level 10, and all the power attacky, great cleavey goodness by that time as well. If you approach dishing out this much damage per round, you're optimized for my game. If you go OVER this much damage per round, you're too optimized for my game.

Non damage dealing trickery is a bit harder to judge, but the idea is the same. If your concept threatens to eclipse the other PC's, then I may not allow it. If it's merely better than the other PC's, they may just get more toys to compensate.

[Psyren]

Mine

Yours seem fine to me (though as someone said, your Dodge and WF may be a tad too strong.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

1) Is it in the books or Dragon? If yes, goto 2.
2) Are you okay with the same tactics/build being used against you by the NPCs? If yes, goto 3.
3) Are you sure? If yes, goto 4.
4) Congratulations! You can have it.

[DarkEternal]

Spells usually have to be reviewed by me before I allow them. Usually, I allow like 99 percent of them, but some, like shivering palm(I think that's the name, from Frostburn, touch attack that takes like 3d6 Dex) are banned. Also, clerics that went into that divine metamagic crap with persist have to check with me to see if I will allow said magic to be persisted. Again, most of it is quite alright, but not all.

[Callista]

If it's so good that you'd have to be stupid not to take it, I don't allow it.

Otherwise, everybody will take it, and that's boring.

[Coidzor]

If it's so good that you'd have to be stupid not to take it, I don't allow it.

Otherwise, everybody will take it, and that's boring.

Does that go through multiple loops or just a single culling?

[*.*.*.*]

1) Is it in the books or Dragon? If yes, goto 2.
2) Are you okay with the same tactics/build being used against you by the NPCs? If yes, goto 3.
3) Are you sure? If yes, goto 4.
4) Congratulations! You can have it.

This

Then again, I can out build my group at everything. Although I do ban Artificers...

[Temet Nosce]

1) Is it in the books or Dragon? If yes, goto 2.
2) Are you okay with the same tactics/build being used against you by the NPCs? If yes, goto 3.
3) Are you sure? If yes, goto 4.
4) Congratulations! You can have it.

This basically, except I generalize it to things of a similar power level rather than limiting myself to just what the party uses. The players can have basically anything official provided they're willing to deal with challenges large enough to justify it.

On a somewhat tangential topic I also tend to ask the party to stay in the same general area optimization wise, a bunch of highly optimized tier 1 through 3s is fine, two highly optimized tier 1s, an unoptimized tier 4, and an optimized tier 5 is not. I've found that having extreme party differentiation in effectiveness causes far more problems than a party that all tend one way or another.

[Squark]

1. Are you going to do something stupid with it?

A)No- Good, go to question 2.
B)Yes- Sorry, then no.

2. Does it fit in my campaign (and I tend to run kitchen sink style campaigns)

A) Yes- Go a head then
B) No- WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU DIG THIS THING UP???!!!


Seriously, as 3.5 DM's go, I probably would have allowed anything that wouldn't have creeped out my younger players. (Less than 10. Then again, the eldest was 13, and only a few months younger than me. Not sure how it'll turn out now that I'm DMing again. Of course, this time it's 4e)

It helps that I, the DM, was the only one that really enjoyed Char Op anyway.

[Callista]

Does that go through multiple loops or just a single culling?

It only targets stuff that's hugely more powerful than the other stuff available. If the power level is only slightly stronger than average, it'll get overwhelmed by the effect of random dice rolls anyway.

I've yet to have the misfortune of playing with someone who's so dedicated to powergaming that they'll always take even a slightly more powerful option, and I really don't care if one character has a +2 and the other has a +5. It's when you get to +2 versus +20 that the problems start to pop up. If I can challenge them all with the same encounter, I'm happy.

Actually, come to think of it, I've had more issues with people choosing things that fit their character concepts but weaken their character mechanically. I find I'm helping people powergame a great deal more than I'm trying to get them to tone it down. People new to the game can really benefit from more experienced players showing them how to make their concept work mechanically.

[Urpriest]

For me, I'm much more likely to ban something if there's an ambiguity in interpretation that I can hide behind. For example, Warbeast looks like it can be applied to an existing animal, but the rules could also be referring to rearing/training a preexisting Warbeast. Since I can choose, I choose the latter. Stuff like Divine Metamagic on personal spells, where there really is no ambiguity, I tend to allow.

[grimbold]

no exponential growth curves

[Pechvarry]

We do a lot of stuff by gentleman's agreements and a basic "is this unkind to other players?" rule. In general, if you have to say "by RAW, I can actually..." then it's probably banned. Some general examples:

-Shadow Pounce doesn't give you multiple full round actions if you can teleport multiple times in a round.
-No early entry.
-Metamagic reducers don't go into the negative. Just because it never says you can't doesn't mean you can (this means +0 metamagic feats have no value beyond what the feat itself provides for us).
-This one is more nebulous, but we tend to try to keep our numbers rational. If everyone else deals 30 damage/hit, getting your barbarian to charge-hit for 400 damage is probably bad. At least, if he can do it every round or even every other round. If the Paladin can also get to 400 damage, but only once/day, it's a bit more likely to fly... but only a bit. I suppose this means we use something similar to gbprime's "Jewel Rule", except we'll let it slide more and it's based more off of the current party than a PHB standard (read: we're too lazy to work that stuff out).

[Gnaeus]

Nothing stronger than a moderately optimized, intelligently played T1 (so no Planar Shepherd, Beholder mage, tainted scholar, etc).

Nothing that if logically played should cause an inevitable, fatal party clash. Paladin OK. Dread Necromancer OK. Paladin + Dread Necro needs to be fixed before play.

I like Urpriest's design principles rule also.

[hamishspence]

If the Dread Necromancer is Neutral-

and if "animating an undead" is something that, while objectionable, is not something the paladin is obliged to punish, or obliged to make "I'll leave the party if he doesn't stop it" comments about, it might not be so bad.

[Masaioh]

Rule #1: Something that can defeat monsters from the ELH without taking any damage at ECL 20 or lower is banned.

Rule #2: Something is too weak if a monk can wipe the floor with it.

Rule #3: If we already have content that is better without violating rule #1, it's banned.

Rule #4: If it makes less sense than anything by Salvador Dali or Mr. Welch, it's banned.. I have yet to see this happen.

Where is Planar Shepard from, btw, and why is it so broken?

[Mushroom Ninja]

I don't generally care how powerful my PCs get as long as they are similarly powerful. If someone wants to play some Mystic Ur-priest Theurge, in a group where everyone else is playing fighters and monks, I'll probably say no. If, however, they want to do so in a party of Initiates of the sevenfold vales and Ruby Knight Windicators, I'll probably say yes.

[Thrawn183]

No combining shock trooper with full attacks on a charge, or damage of that level.
No metamagic reducers.
No messing with the action economy.

Basically, I want to be able to throw monsters straight out of the MM at the party and not have any problems.

[hamishspence]

Where is Planar Shepard from, btw, and why is it so broken?

Eberron Campaign Setting- specifically Faiths of Eberron- it's broken because you can create a bubble where time for you flows far faster than for the outside- allowing you far more actions than the enemy.

And all the normal druid abilities advance as if you were taking druid levels- so you lose nothing.

[sonofzeal]

Don't forget that Planar Sheppard expands your Wildshape options tremendously too, and in extremely abusable directions.

Basically, it takes one of the five best classes in the game, makes all of its tricks work even better, and gives massively abusable abilities on top of that. Planar Sheppard would be broken on a Healer for Pelor's sake, who wouldn't even get half its features.

[Gnaeus]

If the Dread Necromancer is Neutral-

and if "animating an undead" is something that, while objectionable, is not something the paladin is obliged to punish, or obliged to make "I'll leave the party if he doesn't stop it" comments about, it might not be so bad.

If the 2 players work out their respective moral codes in a way which the DM approves and which doesn't cause problems, I would call that "fixed before play".

[hamishspence]

True. Though it's possible that the paladin player simply doesn't think in a problematic way.

They may have read the code, decided to focus heavily on "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" and make this the only major thing that counts as "offending against the paladin's moral code".

So- the paladin player might not even be aware that "other players committing evil acts" might be a problem for them- since they focus on what they see as the defining feature of the paladin. They're not obliged to "punish evil" but to "punish the harmers of the innocent".

Sometimes, something that the DM might expect to come up as a problem later, might simply not manifest.

[Bang!]

Can it rewrite its ability list daily?
If yes, I ban it or modify it until the answer is 'no'.
If no, I'll allow it.

It's more a matter of momentum than balance.
(Narcolepsy is a horrible thing for narrative flow.)

[FMArthur]

• 1: Does it make no sense for this to be possible in the game world?
• 2: Does playing against it require large amounts of information that realistically only its user will attempt to learn?
• 3: Does it require 'boolean' countering to give it trouble (ie the only things that work against it make the character utterly useless when put into play)?
• 4: Will it make the other players seem ineffective?

This is my list. I guess it actually starts with "does it look overpowered/have a reputation for being overpowered?".
Only the most flagrant nonsense combinations will actually get barred by #1. Most of the time even total silliness unintended by the rules can be fluffed into being some neat fantasy flavor.