Wise banning

[Karlgamer]

Warning: this is going to be a discussion about banning certain rules so if you don't like banning this isn't a conversation for you.

I'm on the last section of the last book in Kingmaker. I'm about to start Rise of the Runelords.

I've decided to run Runelords similar to a Society game. No item creation feats, no leadership, etc.

There have been a few things I've found problematic.

Summoners(class)
Icy Prison(spell)
Suffocation(spell)
Dazing spell(feet)

Are there any other spells, feats, etc. that I should consider banning? Why?

I'm certainly willing to hear compromises but these item are definitely problems as they stand.

[proftobe]

Gunslingers. They start out underpowered but as touch AC falls behind as you level. Its more of an issue with firearms than the class but with proper feats its like archery but better.

[Lawrence DuBois]

It might be helpful if you expand on your reasons for thinking these need to be banned, Karlgamer.

[master_marshmallow]

I tend to avoid the feats that lead to cheese in the sense that they break the resource management side of the game. Item crafting usually ends up in games I play meaning that everyone in the group gets all of their items, and gets them all at half price. Leadership leads to not having to spend money on potions because I can bring my own self buffer and group of low level followers to run in and figure out what I'm fighting against. Or even worse, it can do both, if your PC takes a wizard who specialized in crafting.

Rather than banning things outright, I simply have some more streamlined and harsher rules on certain mechanics. I don't allow the bypassing of material requirements for crafting, and I keep track of how many days are actually spent in game, and how that affects the age of the characters.

For the most part that's all the banning you should need to do.

[RogueShadow3]

Material components. The book doesn't say how long a typical spell component pouch lasts just that it contains all the necessary components that don't have separate costs. We generally have them last a week then need "recharging" at half price, some of the cost would be the bag after all. I can see how most people are against gunslingers but the cost of ammunition is rather balancing as well as the fact that their bullets are always destroyed when fired even when they miss, and the reload times, and if they get wet they don't fire. Summoners are only a problem if you let them cheat and use their summon ability more than they're supposed to, they can't have multiples at once and that includes their eidelon. I have no problem with banning something but make sure you're doing it for a good reason and not just because your players are running amok with it. There are usually ways around things, especially if they repeatedly pull the same tactics.

[Lord_Malkov]

I totally agree on summoners.... no idea who wrote that class but goodness is it overpowered. The animal companion squared is already good... the spell list is nauseatingly overpowered. If you get half of your spells two levels early, then you aren't really a half caster

[Lawrence DuBois]

Summoners really aren't a problem. In fact, for most people, they're a little underpowered since you effectively have to manage two characters, neither of which are as powerful as another of their level. There is strength in numbers, but part of the reason the summon monster spells expand the lists as you go up in level is the fact that at 20th, two dozen celestial dire rats are about as helpful as a celestial tick. You can break it a little if you know what you're doing, but at that point you could probably break most other classes even more.
It's kind of got the problem that psionics had in 3.5e where it's a new system that's just a little too complex to fully grasp without playing through, and looks much more powerful than it really is.

Also, what RogueShadow said about gunslingers.

Also also, I agree with master_marshmallow in spirit, though think he goes a bit overboard. Still, to each their own. As long as you don't have a character completely overshadowing and outclassing another (or several), it's really just a matter of taste.

Of course, all of this is why I asked the OP for examples as to why they felt these things needed banning. Unless you just want the vanity of a dozen people sheepishly nodding agreement, you need to present a case in order to start a true discussion.

[Nox Aeterna]

Well , i dont have the time now to write about summoners lols , so i will make a quick point :P.

Just make sure your players are up for that.

I usually play summoner , the moment you banned the class 90% i would leave the table right there. If you have no player who prety much loves the class , then go for it.

[zagnabbit]

I don't think Summoners are overpowered.
I do think they can SLOW DOWN COMBAT. I hate that at a table.

I also have an old 3.5 houserule where any form of summon spell is creature specific, where MSIV doesn't summon a variable critter, it summons a Bralani named Ted, Ted has a character sheet. If the summoner wants to summon something else he needs a different spell, with all the costs for a different spell, as well as slots and memorization requirements.
This solves a ton of Summoner Stupidity.

I allow Leadership.
I put restrictions on it. Spellcasters can get an apprentice with it. Warriors and Rogues can attract anything. Barbarians can get barbies, Druids, bards and Bats. Monks get monks. I roll up the cohort. No min/maxed point buy. I pick the feats, name etc. Cohorts who exist solely to craft/buff don't exist. Crafters are capitalists, they work for money not praise.

I do ban the Pit spells.
Not sure if they are overpowered I just dislike them.

I did ban Echo Spell.
It as to much at high levels.

No one has actually played a Gunslinger in a group I've participated in. I can't decide if I like the firearm mechanics. Touch AC is kinda odd to me since I know from a Principles of Engineering class in college that the Spaniards put that ridge along the centerline of their breastplates to deflect musket balls.

I lock out high level play by preference.
That's not a ban, but I hate running games with players over 15th level. Too much stat prep. I'll play as a PC, but I've got more important stuff to do with my free time.

I try to encourage E8 games, but that's not always an option.

[foolsjourney]

zagnabbit wrote:

I allow Leadership.
I put restrictions on it. Spellcasters can get an apprentice with it. Warriors and Rogues can attract anything. Barbarians can get barbies, Druids, bards and Bats. Monks get monks. I roll up the cohort. No min/maxed point buy. I pick the feats, name etc. Cohorts who exist solely to craft/buff don't exist. Crafters are capitalists, they work for money not praise.

I run sandbox in a town of approximately 1,500 population plus associated satellite outposts, mines etc. None of my party has pushed for Leadership yet, but if they do that's exactly how I intend to do it. Unless they approach specific characters they have already had dealings with (either in game or in backstory), then they will either have to seek out specific type of follower or they'll be assigned randomly. And be responsible for their 'wages'.

[lastblacknight]

I don't disallow anything, except non-core races. GMing in PFS has given me a thick skin so I can cope with just about any table mostly.

Some personalities of players I find aren't suited to some classes; I think some maturity is required. Paladin and Summoners can be an example but party balance is a tricky thing.

It's not that summoners as are more over-powered than any class, they really aren't.

But a recent GM disallowed have disallowed 'Snowball', races that fly can be tricky as well, I dislike drow as PC's as well (unless it's a theme and everyone in the party is one).

[Karlgamer]

I'm fairly set that those items will be banned because they are/were problems in my current game.

I'm looking to preemptively stop future problems.

By problems I mean they were making things less fun.

There are a lot of fights in my current campaign which should be frighteningly challenging, but which ended abruptly.

After carefully vetting the rules and making sure that we were doing everything correct I came to the conclusion that those items were problematic.

Now I know that most everything in the CRB has been thoroughly playtested, but the items in the other books haven't been playtested as much and I believe that is why some of them are problems.

A friend of mine suggested that I make the game CRB only, but I really don't want to take all the cool options away from my players.

So, I'm just looking to ban the specific things that might become problems.

[Mudfoot]

Rope Trick. Incoherent, incomplete, ill-considered and overpowered.

Animated Shields.

[Arakhor]

Mudfoot wrote:

Rope Trick. Incoherent, incomplete, ill-considered and overpowered.

So, what do you dislike about it?

[MMCJawa]

My opinion is to be leery of bans until you have had a problem at your table. Not every group has the same game mastery or dynamics, and something that is overpowered at X table is likely to be fine at Y table.

That said Summoners seem to be the most problematic class for most people, for mechanical and non-flavor reasons.

[Kimera757]

Karlgamer wrote:

Warning: this is going to be a discussion about banning certain rules so if you don't like banning this isn't a conversation for you.

I'm on the last section of the last book in Kingmaker. I'm about to start Rise of the Runelords.

I've decided to run Runelords similar to a Society game. No item creation feats, no leadership, etc.

There have been a few things I've found problematic.

Summoners(class)
Icy Prison(spell)
Suffocation(spell)
Dazing spell(feet)

Are there any other spells, feats, etc. that I should consider banning? Why?

I'm certainly willing to hear compromises but these item are definitely problems as they stand.

In a lot of cases, a ban isn't needed, but a nerf is. The pit spellls, for instance, need some kind of scaling mechanic for how difficult it is to climb out of the pit. They shouldn't start with Climb DCs of 20 or 25, but shouldn't stay a low number either. Although one could argue that spells setting skill DCs are a tad broken, because your opponent's skill scores are not predictable. (I'm recalling a fight my group did in Kingmaker. Our witch used an icy spell that hit a group of barbarians. They had to make Acrobatics checks to not fall while moving, and the area was totally obscured. Our opponents had no ranks in Acrobatics and only halfway decent Acrobatics scores, so +2 each. That was slow and grindy :( )

I would ban summoners. They are not (necessarily) overpowered, but they are broken. You can fill the battlefield with summons and rolls lots of dice, which are almost meaningless because summons are usually weak. They're broken in terms of how they mess up combat, not the often-used description of overpowered.

And then the class is so complex that people mess it up. DMs do it. Well-meaning and intelligent players do it. The FAQ section is huge. While a DM could at least theoretically put a lot of time into reading every detail of the class and constantly audit the eidolon, at a certain point you're putting more work into regulating one PC than the rest of the party. I'm going to put a "broken" tag on that part of it too.

Icy Prison I've seen a few times, but I'm thinking the problem is the usual save DC/saving throw and save-or-suffer system.

I'm not familiar with Suffocation or Dazing Spell.

I don't have a problem with a ban for thematic rather than balance problems. Banning Gunslingers or Alchemists wouldn't bother me in the least.

[DrDeth]

Summoner scan be overpowered. But there are two definite problems with them, they are a huge spotlight and time hog, and the DM has the triple check the build every level. In fact, if I allowed a summoner, I'd post the build here and let folks dissect and check it.

Both of those mean the class just isn't worth allowing.

[lastblacknight]

The only bans I'd consider are items created after the module or scenario was created. Anti-toxin & Anti-plagues for example (can break some early AP's - as the items were actually created from them).

The more complicated classes like Summoner, Druid and Wizard have a higher learning curve. I like Summoners for the flavour you can have with them, their flexibility and concepts you can make are pretty cool. But they really shouldn't be a players first PC.

I'd say have some limits - (I usually stick with what's allowed in PFS because it helps me prepare for the next con etc).

[Mudfoot]

Arakhor wrote:

Mudfoot wrote:

Rope Trick. Incoherent, incomplete, ill-considered and overpowered.

So, what do you dislike about it?

I shall quote an old post:

Rope Trick is one of those very ambiguous spells that works fine until someone starts asking 'what if...' questions when it all falls down. It was like this in 3.0 and it would have been nice if Paizo had given it a bit of work.

What if...someone pushes a block of stone to fit flush underneath the entrance? Now there's no way out. So what happens when the spell ends?

What if...someone steps on top of the portal while it's open? Do they fall through, exposing their intestines to the view and assault of those within? Or is it solid? And how much weight can it support? Break DC?

What if...someone walks into the edge of the portal? Is it sharp?

What if...someone casts it while in a moving vessel? Does it move with the vessel? Carry on in a straight line? Stop like an immovable rod?

What if...I just ban this overpowered farrago and save myself these awkward questions?

[lastblacknight]

..or just use your own house-rule that makes sense.

I had a party years ago that had a permanent item made using rope trick (basically you could use 1/day); I never had any issues. It's the same with a lot of rules in the game, most rules work just fine (we've had about 30 years to bed down most of them).

What's the issue with Rope Trick?

[Aelfborn]

I just never liked the flavor of the Rope Trick spell. In my campaigns, it is replace by the Animate Rope spell which is, essentially, how I wished the spell had worked ever since starting with D&D.