What's on your banned list?

[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...

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?