Banned Material in Your Games


Advice

201 to 250 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Arcutiys wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I never really saw a reason to ban the gunslinger. Yeah, they do a lot of damage. Yeah, they target touch AC. But that's all they do. They literally solve every problem by shooting it. If they can't shoot it, they're just a fighter with no class features.
Then again, that is just about every class except bard and sometimes rogue or rarely a charisma caster. Not that I'm arguing against gunslingers, I love having the guys around. Just saying that not many classes are naturally predisposed for out of combat stuff.

Huh? Wha?!?

Let's see, in the core rules, druids, clerics, sorcerers, wizards, and bards all have magic with a lot of out of combat utility. Paladins and rangers have a few nifty utility spells, and other class features that make them good to go on out-of-combat utility. The rogue is primarily a utility class...
heck, the BARBARIAN gets trap sense and enough scout/nature oriented schools to be a decent tracker.

The only core classes without much non-combat utility are fighters and monks. Outside of core, the only class I can think of that is geared for nothing-but-combat-all-the-time is the samurai.

Granted, yeah, but the casters become somewhat useless in combat when they use their spell slots for utility. You can only use "Create two gallons of water" to put out fires before the GM gets upset and makes every fire magical. But that wasn't my point. I know there's a lot of things that can be used out of combat, but that's player implementation. Wall of Blank could easily be used to create Blank to sell, but that obviously wasn't the intent, and spells often go out of their way to limit out of combat uses.

I also really wouldn't consider trapfinding to be a out of combat ability. Either way, like I said, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just saying that, aside from using combat abilities to break doors or intimidate people, not many classes get anything that's supposed to be used for utility. That's sort of left up to the player. A gunslinger could be just as effective out of combat as any other character, with the possible exceptions of the rogue and bard. And no one plays those classes because FUN IS NOT THE POINT OF PATHFINDER, OPTIMIZATION IS, UNLESS IT'S TOO OPTIMIZED AND THEN YOU'RE HAVING BADWRONGFUN

Grand Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I do ban the Antipaladin.

It just doesn't work in any of the campaigns we play, and it's not worth the trouble.

I like to houserule in an LE version. Much better fit.

I miss the Blackguard.


I ban a lot of things. I'll ban for
1. Setting: Something is not appropriate for a given campaign (I don't use published settings), but I would allow if it were appropriate in another campaign setting (ex. Gunslingers,Inquisitors, Ninja, Samurai, Asian Weapons, dinosaur companions )

2. Flavor/Concepts that I dislike and will never make room for in any campaign that I run. The following examples are not a complete list.

Evil PCs
Class features: Barbarian's supernatural rages and several other rage abilities. Most of the Sorcerer Bloodlines
Archetypes: most of the Barbarian archetypes; Most of the Druid archetypes excluding the terrain archteypes
Equipment: Sunrods, Tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, riding dogs
Weapons: Spiked Chains,Urgorsh, Elf Thin blades,
Spells: Goodberry, Divine Power, Law/Chaos alignment based spells, Prismatic Spells, Rope Trick, Transformation, Wish

3. Mechanics- especially, if I have another alternative that I prefer. The following are a few examples
Classes: Alchemist, Summoner
Class: Witch (I use the Green Ronin Witch).
The Druid Shaman archetypes are not used as I prefer Green Ronin's Shaman Class(the new Shaman class is heading for a similar fate).

I'll note that for D&D 3e, not only did I ban the same spells and equipment listed above and most PrCs, I banned several WOTC books and almost everything from some several books.
Entire Books: Book of Exalted Deeds, Dragon Magic, Epic Level Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, all Psionics Books, Tome of Battle,Weapons of Legacy
Almost everything from the Complete [X] series (and their 3.0 counterparts), Races of [x] books, PHB2, Savage Species, Tome of Magic,


The only thing we really ban is 3rd party materials. I'll usually allow paizo stuff on a case-by-case basis depending on what we play. We did a short campaign where the party all used guns (a sword and pistol musketeer cavalier, spellslinger wizard, cane sword pistol wielding archeologist, and axe musket wielding dwarven musket master). Fun as hell, but only in that setting.


@Aelfborn: Why ban goodberry?


Umbranus wrote:
@Aelfborn: Why ban goodberry?

I have never liked the flavor of the spell going all the way back to AD&D.In my campaigns, there are actual healing berries that can be found with survival (depending upon the environment) or the druid can take Brew Potions and make healing potions that take the form of berries. Otherwise, they can cast simply cast cure spells.


Goodberry is the bomb diggity if you are using the wounds and vigor alternate rules.


I don't really full-on ban anything. Everything is theoretically negotiable. The amount of negotiation involved varies by source though.

CRB- Everything's good but Leadership. I tend to run games for groups of 6, so cohorts would make things too crowded, and honestly, you don't need feats to make friends with NPCs.

Advanced books- Mostly cool with me, but summoners and too a lesser extent alchemists get some serious scrutiny, and I try to minimize the presence of freaks. i.e. the game I'm currently running has an android ninja who wandered from Nemuria to Sandpoint but... everyone else is local and generally human.

Ultimate books- I'm a bit more iffy here, because they cast a real wide net, and balance can really vary. Quick Runner's Shirts for instance are way too good for trivializing big climactic showdowns for the price in my book.

Player Companions- Odds are against it, mainly just because I most likely don't have it, and the player asking doesn't either.

Adventure Paths- You'd better be asking about the one we're playing.

3rd party/D&D- I'm probably going to modify the hell out of anything I OK.

Scarab Sages

I try to keep to a classic medieval fantasy setting so I ban all the weeaboo classes and any archetype that uses gunsmithing.

Grand Lodge

Macona wrote:

I try to keep to a classic medieval fantasy setting so I ban all the weeaboo classes and any archetype that uses gunsmithing.

So, not Golarion?


Macona wrote:
I try to keep to a classic medieval fantasy setting so I ban all the weeaboo classes and any archetype that uses gunsmithing.

I should make a game sometime where all the Classic Medieval classes are banned just so I can sneer at the Europhiles.

There really needs to be a true derogatory term for people obsessed with European culture and the purity/superiority of it, like weaboo but for people who think European fantasy is the true master race.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Macona wrote:
I try to keep to a classic medieval fantasy setting so I ban all the weeaboo classes and any archetype that uses gunsmithing.

I should make a game sometime where all the Classic Medieval classes are banned just so I can sneer at the Europhiles.

There really needs to be a true derogatory term for people obsessed with European culture and the purity/superiority of it, like weaboo but for people who think European fantasy is the true master race.

White supremacist?


memorax wrote:


I'm not sure your being serious or sarcastic. I'm going to go for sarcastic. We have a player with a Ranger who retrained his TWF for a ranged specialist because our group has enough frontline fighters. Yeah he sure is "super bad". Really he is. All the times his hits and does damage while targeting regular AC. It's too bad he rolled low damage a few times. We all agreed that switching to a bow was a mistake. Super bad give me a break.

Why are you talking about bows when I was talking about guns?

Bows have a lot of advantages over guns, even at level 5 for gunslingers when they get dex to damage.

I could list them all for you, but a lot of them seem obvious. I think the biggest one is a 15% chance per shot (If they gunslinger wants to reload as a free action) to misfire and lose the rest of their attacks for the round AND the next round unless they spend a grit point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people think just because Tolkien did it, now everyone has to or else you're playing a "weeaboo class". I find it hard to think people can't flavor classes however they'd like and they wouldn't still be able to fit. Oh, your "rogue" decided to specialize in poisons instead of traps and has a latent connection with magic (say a sorcerer in the family)? Can't allow that, the name doesn't derive from generic fantasy literature! Next thing you know, someone will come along and say every bard will need to play a lute. It's the choices in character design that make something usable, not the flavor out of the box. Classes are skill sets, not name tags and uniforms.

I'm sorry, I just get heated when people disregard the roleplaying part of the roleplaying game in order to say entire classes don't fit the setting. I can get gunslinger if the technology just isn't there, but your story better be pretty great if you want me to ditch a character concept on that and that alone. Because if it doesn't live up to the hype, then your players may not be happy.

Now, I can see the problem with higher level gunslingers, but I'm starting to think that for my campaign, I'll swap guns out to hit flat footed AC instead of touch. I'd think that would allow the challenge to scale better and still let my gunslinger player to feel like a badass.


Y'know...that actually makes a bit more sense than attacking Touch AC. Attacking Touch AC basically means it ignores armor, but you can dodge a bullet.

This reverses that idea. Heavy armored targets are more dangerous, while Dex based opponents aren't.

Screws Monks a bunch but hey, what doesn't?


Rynjin wrote:

Y'know...that actually makes a bit more sense than attacking Touch AC. Attacking Touch AC basically means it ignores armor, but you can dodge a bullet.

This reverses that idea. Heavy armored targets are more dangerous, while Dex based opponents aren't.

Screws Monks a bunch but hey, what doesn't?

Actually, I've seen this idea thrown around several times and every time I hear it, it sounds better and better.

Because the idea that armor is irrelevant versus musket balls but you can dodge a tiny object travelling 1200 ft/s seems very sound.

The real issue is that touch AC gets worse and worse in this game as level scales up because enemies get bigger, stronger and slower. They use natural armor to compensate. And this worked well for the most part, until the gun slinger came around with his touch AC targetting.

If instead we make him tagret flat-footed AC it at least gives enemies a chance to shrug avoid it.


That was my intention. Dodging bullets is something relegated to only Neo in a whole movie about gunplay. I wouldn't be against making "use full AC against firearm attacks" a class feature, but it seems just too odd that everyone can bend themselves around bullets. Leather armor shouldn't help much in terms of stopping power, but it feels more right when you deal with heavier stuff like plate. I have to run the numbers to be sure, though.

Claxon, I agree. It just makes things a bit too easy to hit because touch AC is often pretty low. I always figured it was to make up for mages having poor BABs and dealing with touch and ranged touch spells. Giving a full martial access to that is a bit high.


Eh, given that you can dodge things that move super-fast like LIGHTNING, I think dodging bullets in D&D makes perfect sense.

So really you just end up using regular AC for bullets and getting rid of the stupid breakage rules. I think working from there makes a lot more sense overall.


Mapleswitch wrote:
I also ban item combos and item/spell combos that create infinite gold creating loops.

... WHAT? I never heard of anything like that... can you give me a few examples? I have a gamer that would totally start doing this if they figured it out, if i know i can stop em before they begin.


Drachasor wrote:

Eh, given that you can dodge things that move super-fast like LIGHTNING, I think dodging bullets in D&D makes perfect sense.

So really you just end up using regular AC for bullets and getting rid of the stupid breakage rules. I think working from there makes a lot more sense overall.

So have the target roll a Reflex Save vs the shooters attack roll.


I never heard the term "Weeabo" before today. It is one thing not to want to run a campaign of a certain flavor, but,essentially, denigrating people for their preferences is another.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Drachasor wrote:

Eh, given that you can dodge things that move super-fast like LIGHTNING, I think dodging bullets in D&D makes perfect sense.

So really you just end up using regular AC for bullets and getting rid of the stupid breakage rules. I think working from there makes a lot more sense overall.

So have the target roll a Reflex Save vs the shooters attack roll.

And spells that are rays and hence touch attacks? That is against AC as well. If they ostensibly should be fast (light, lightning, etc), should they not target touch AC anymore?

Grand Lodge

Drachasor wrote:

Eh, given that you can dodge things that move super-fast like LIGHTNING, I think dodging bullets in D&D makes perfect sense.

So really you just end up using regular AC for bullets and getting rid of the stupid breakage rules. I think working from there makes a lot more sense overall.

Or something even faster.


A ray of light

Speed of Light 299,792,458 m / s
Speed of Bullet 180–1500 m/s
Speed of Arrrow - up to 195fps or so..
Speed of Baseball 46.0 m/s

We can use Touch Ac on Rays of light from the Sun, but put a weapon in the hands of a martial class and suddenly that just doesn't make sense anymore.


Normally when you dodge things such as LIGHTNING, it is because you made a Reflex Save, so if you want to dodge bullets, make a Reflex Save. You could replace that mechanic for all Touch Attacks.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Normally when you dodge things such as LIGHTNING, it is because you made a Reflex Save, so if you want to dodge bullets, make a Reflex Save. You could replace that mechanic for all Touch Attacks.

This entirely depends on the nature of the attack. Because a touch attack IS something you are dodging.

Heck, DODGE bonuses, remember those?


Espy Kismet wrote:
Drachasor wrote:

Eh, given that you can dodge things that move super-fast like LIGHTNING, I think dodging bullets in D&D makes perfect sense.

So really you just end up using regular AC for bullets and getting rid of the stupid breakage rules. I think working from there makes a lot more sense overall.

Or something even faster.


A ray of light

Speed of Light 299,792,458 m / s
Speed of Bullet 180–1500 m/s
Speed of Arrrow - up to 195fps or so..
Speed of Baseball 46.0 m/s

We can use Touch Ac on Rays of light from the Sun, but put a weapon in the hands of a martial class and suddenly that just doesn't make sense anymore.

Why do you all assume its the bullet you are dodging? The act of pointing squeezing and firing can be anticipated. If someone was trying to shoot you, would you wait until the bullet left the gun before trying to get out of the way?


In my experience, people don't play the "weeaboo" classes because of ~animes~ or whatever, they play them because those classes are the ones that let them do what they want to do. Want to hit things to death with your bare hands? You're gonna have to be a monk. Want to play a rogue but be somewhat competent? You're gonna have to be a ninja.


Evilserran wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
I also ban item combos and item/spell combos that create infinite gold creating loops.
... WHAT? I never heard of anything like that... can you give me a few examples? I have a gamer that would totally start doing this if they figured it out, if i know i can stop em before they begin.

One example is Robes of Infinite Twine (1,000g) - use it to pull out 10 feet of hemp rope every round. In an 8 hour work day, you can pull out 48,000 feet of hemp rope. Cut into 50 feet segments, selling them at 5 silver coins each - making yourself 480 gold per day. This item pays for itself in less than 3 days. There are many, many combos and special items like this one.

I banned it after a player used it. Also, for the rest of that adventure, npcs started building their houses out of rope. Need a bridge? Rope. Doorway get busted? Rope.


Mapleswitch wrote:
Evilserran wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
I also ban item combos and item/spell combos that create infinite gold creating loops.
... WHAT? I never heard of anything like that... can you give me a few examples? I have a gamer that would totally start doing this if they figured it out, if i know i can stop em before they begin.

One example is Robes of Infinite Twine (1,000g) - use it to pull out 10 feet of hemp rope every round. In an 8 hour work day, you can pull out 48,000 feet of hemp rope. Cut into 50 feet segments, selling them at 5 silver coins each - making yourself 480 gold per day. This item pays for itself in less than 3 days. There are many, many combos, special items like this one.

I banned it after a player used it. Also, for the rest of that adventure, npcs started building their houses out of rope. Need a bridge? Rope. Doorway get busted? Rope.

Eh, I don't see a need to ban it. If it got abused then nerfing it does just as good. Maybe the rope only lasts a week or disappears if the robe gets more than a mile away. Lots of ways to handle it.


Zhayne wrote:


The cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.

Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.

Wow, talk about a table I would leave....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
In my experience, people don't play the "weeaboo" classes because of ~animes~ or whatever, they play them because those classes are the ones that let them do what they want to do. Want to hit things to death with your bare hands? You're gonna have to be a monk. Want to play a rogue but be somewhat competent? You're gonna have to be a ninja.

I can attest to this. I hate most anime in general, but the historical depiction of Samurai interests me just as much as the depictions of knights, plus, I like the idea of the mechanics supporting that honorable attitude, with challenges and such. Too bad I hate using mounts. Aside from my Grippli druid who rides a Giant Frog, which was probably my best idea ever.

But I am digressing. I just dislike people who ban anything that isn't tolkien


Arcutiys wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
In my experience, people don't play the "weeaboo" classes because of ~animes~ or whatever, they play them because those classes are the ones that let them do what they want to do. Want to hit things to death with your bare hands? You're gonna have to be a monk. Want to play a rogue but be somewhat competent? You're gonna have to be a ninja.

I can attest to this. I hate most anime in general, but the historical depiction of Samurai interests me just as much as the depictions of knights, plus, I like the idea of the mechanics supporting that honorable attitude, with challenges and such. Too bad I hate using mounts. Aside from my Grippli druid who rides a Giant Frog, which was probably my best idea ever.

But I am digressing. I just dislike people who ban anything that isn't tolkien

Off topic but you may want to check the sword-saint archetype in the Dragon Empires Primer players companion they swap the samurai's mount with an ability called Iaijutsu Strike.


atheral wrote:
Arcutiys wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
In my experience, people don't play the "weeaboo" classes because of ~animes~ or whatever, they play them because those classes are the ones that let them do what they want to do. Want to hit things to death with your bare hands? You're gonna have to be a monk. Want to play a rogue but be somewhat competent? You're gonna have to be a ninja.

I can attest to this. I hate most anime in general, but the historical depiction of Samurai interests me just as much as the depictions of knights, plus, I like the idea of the mechanics supporting that honorable attitude, with challenges and such. Too bad I hate using mounts. Aside from my Grippli druid who rides a Giant Frog, which was probably my best idea ever.

But I am digressing. I just dislike people who ban anything that isn't tolkien

Off topic but you may want to check the sword-saint archetype in the Dragon Empires Primer players companion they swap the samurai's mount with an ability called Iaijutsu Strike.

Oh poop, a alternate class with archetypes? I didn't even think to look for that. Thanks for the heads up!


Geflin Graysoul wrote:
As a player I recently took Leadership for the first time and I'm really hating tracking two character sheets. I'm going to suggest we add leadership to the banned list.

You could just ask to re-train the feat and the follower can wander off or be turned into a GM NPC.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andostre wrote:
Geflin Graysoul wrote:
As a player I recently took Leadership for the first time and I'm really hating tracking two character sheets. I'm going to suggest we add leadership to the banned list.
You could just ask to re-train the feat and the follower can wander off or be turned into a GM NPC.

Another reason I prefer alternate solutions to banning. Maybe 1 person didn't like an aspect of something...they can also choose *not* to do it. But taking the choice away from everyone else? Not big for me in a make-believe game.

You want an anime-superpowered jedi feel to your fighters? Book of Nine Swords. You want more boom in your wizard? Ultimate Magic. You want to play a dragon? Reborn Dragonborn Dragonfire Adept. Or...you can *choose* not to play any of them because you like being a core fighter with a really great story concept you want to roleplay out.


I hate the idea of banning things, because I want to encourage a player being excited about an character concept. However, I do recognize the value in banning something that will have a negative impact on the group as a whole.

The only thing I've ever banned was when a player wanted to play in an already-started game as a Half-Ogre (3pp). It gets +4 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Wisdom, and the player wanted to play it as a martial character. The player is somewhat of an optimizer, so I was worried that his character would easily out-damage the other members of the party, and I wasn't up for figuring out a way to counter the high damage that wouldn't be frustrating for the other players who were already used to a certain power-level in the campaign.

The campaign is a low-level play-by-post game, which can move pretty slowly. The extra damage per attack probably wouldn't have been a big deal at higher levels, but since the party is still low-level, I didn't want to bring this smasher in and overshadow the other melee types for however many months/years it might have lasted.

Thoughts? Did I handle this situation in the best way?

Dark Archive

Spells:
Comprehend Languages & Tongues (you either know the language or not)
Endure Elements (to avoid immunity to weather/environment rules, which i use a lot)
True Resurrection (not a big fan of resurrection in my games, but at least the corpse has to exsist).
Create Food and Water: Use survival, professions or anything else to create food (magic items that provides free food are scarce)

Feats
Leadership (You get followers/cohort by roleplaying, and the party cannot take more than 1 cohort with them at any time).

Not banned but modified:
Teleport casting time is changed to 1 minute and it's used more as a 'ritual' to travel somewhere rather than disappearing mid-combat.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Mapleswitch wrote:
I banned it after a player used it. Also, for the rest of that adventure, npcs started building their houses out of rope. Need a bridge? Rope. Doorway get busted? Rope.

Oh, the fun that can be had with a player stupid enough to try to use an infinite gold trick in play.

Grand Lodge

Evilserran wrote:


Why do you all assume its the bullet you are dodging? The act of pointing squeezing and firing can be anticipated. If someone was trying to shoot you, would you wait until the bullet left the gun before trying to get out of the way?

Well, Sometimes your flat footed.. oh. Wait. You wouldn't know about the attack then either.

But yeah, there was another show I've seen where someone was dodging bullets, Not because he was Neo but because he was smart enough to predict and adjust his body to avoid the bullet. The gunman even remarks of this, though the hero replies 'just no skill'.

Another where a guy would dodge bullets because he could see enough into the future. Course thats nicolus cage for you.

Another where they trained to fight with guns to 'maximize kill zone' while minimizing the danger they presented. A Kada if you would.

Heck, lots of shows out there have people with guns and lasers, and none of being 'the one' that can dodge the bullets, or as you put it, the anticipated bullet.

Grand Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
I banned it after a player used it. Also, for the rest of that adventure, npcs started building their houses out of rope. Need a bridge? Rope. Doorway get busted? Rope.
Oh, the fun that can be had with a player stupid enough to try to use an infinite gold trick in play.

I have always had an infinite gold trick myself. I went out and adventured, killing rats in every basement there ever was. Made a fortune.

I put the rats there.


As a DM, I think I would just have the local economy crash and the value of rope plummet. There is no such thing as an infinite gold loop when your world does not have infinite gold. That's the advantage of pen and paper over video games. Sure they made 200 gold off the robe, but good luck selling any more rope after that.

As to crossbows, I think they have a bad rap. Look at what role they actually fill: longbow damage at nearly longbow range as a simple weapon. To kick butt with a bow, you need to be able to use a martial weapon, and you need feats to shoot more than one arrow a round at low levels, and you need cash to get a str bonus composite one to out damage a crossbow. Crossbows can be used effectively by almost any 1st level class, including the npc classes.

So yes, a guy with a crossbow won't keep up with legolas at high level play, but if you want to arm an entire village with ranged weaponry, the crossbow is the way to go.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andostre wrote:

I hate the idea of banning things, because I want to encourage a player being excited about an character concept. However, I do recognize the value in banning something that will have a negative impact on the group as a whole.

The only thing I've ever banned was when a player wanted to play in an already-started game as a Half-Ogre (3pp). It gets +4 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Wisdom, and the player wanted to play it as a martial character. The player is somewhat of an optimizer, so I was worried that his character would easily out-damage the other members of the party, and I wasn't up for figuring out a way to counter the high damage that wouldn't be frustrating for the other players who were already used to a certain power-level in the campaign.

The campaign is a low-level play-by-post game, which can move pretty slowly. The extra damage per attack probably wouldn't have been a big deal at higher levels, but since the party is still low-level, I didn't want to bring this smasher in and overshadow the other melee types for however many months/years it might have lasted.

Thoughts? Did I handle this situation in the best way?

You know your campaign the best. Did he plan on stacking it with Ragechemist Barbarian? For like around a +14 to strength? Then I'd probably have a chat with him and suggest that it may be a wee bit over the top. On the other hand, if he really wanted to do it...I'd also take into account the other players which it looks like you did and you made a point of your campaign's power level. If the idea wasn't appropriate to the setting suggest an alternative.

On the other hand, did his concept take into account the stats as a martial build? Perhaps he was doing this as a rogue or monk and wanted to make up for their otherwise sub-par combat abilities. I don't really know. If he wanted to stack as much as possible (the ragechemist barbarian)...then yeah it looks like a good call.

I actually would have allowed him just to see where he took it. But in my campaign (which is of course different) I allow every player to have something non-standard or allow them to really stand out.


Claxon wrote:


The real issue is that touch AC gets worse and worse in this game as level scales up because enemies get bigger, stronger and slower. They use natural armor to compensate. And this worked well for the most part, until the gun slinger came around with his touch AC targetting.

Actually at the top end of cr touch ac starts going up again. Karui kage posted a google doc on it, which showed the actual average ac per cr

Sovereign Court

I don't allow 3rd party stuff. If it doesn't have Golarian in mind, I'm not interested. Mixing that stuff with Pathfinder is a sure fire way to breed munchkin. Other than that I try not to ban anything outright. I can adapt. I always warn my players, anything they can do so can the bad guys. Sometimes even better.


Oh, I also ban things thematically based on campaigns.
Evil Alignments are usually banned unless its an evil campaign.
My current campaign is dwarf race only so I guess you could say that all other races have been banned for this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arcutiys wrote:


If a player becomes emotionally invested in something, how does it not add to the game?

Just because a player becomes emotionally invested in something does not mean that it is, necessarily, a) good for or b)appropriate at a given table.

Then again, I am for communication between the GM and player

1. ahead of time, the GM should inform players of
a. house rules (standard rules from campaign to campaign)
b. setting and setting rules specific for this campaign including available races, classes, archetypes, variant rules, deities and domains etc. (assuming that the GM has a setting built or using a specific published campaign setting)
c. degree of "optimization"
d. preplanned builds vs. organic growth
e. amount of combat vs. noncombat.
f. amount of "dungeon crawling"
g. banned supplements
The above gets people on the same page and allows players to back out if their play style preferences are incompatible

2. Character creation
a. discuss concepts and background with the GM for the GM to approve, make suggestions to fit the campaign and setting, or reject.
b. discuss the mechanical build
c. present the character for review.
This ensures players create appropriate characters for the setting and table. If appropriate for the game, it allows the GM to work in backgrounds and goals.


bfobar wrote:


My current campaign is dwarf race only so I guess you could say that all other races have been banned for this one.

I have done human only settings for a more Sword and Sorcery vibe. A couple of other races existed in the setting, but they were not PC races.


I ban gunslingers, but that's just because they do not fit my homebrew setting that well.

I also ban 3pp stuff, just because it's more stuff I have to keep track of.

I generally have core races + aasimir + tiefling as allowed races, but if a character concept absolutely demands another race and isn't too broken, I'll allow it.


Aelfborn wrote:

1. ahead of time, the GM should inform players of
a. house rules (standard rules from campaign to campaign)
b. setting and setting rules specific for this campaign including available races, classes, archetypes, variant rules, deities and domains etc. (assuming that the GM has a setting built or using a specific published campaign setting)
c. degree of "optimization"
d. preplanned builds vs. organic growth
e. amount of combat vs. noncombat.
f. amount of "dungeon crawling"
g. banned supplements
The above gets people on the same page and allows players to back out if their play style preferences are incompatible

2. Character creation
a. discuss concepts and background with the GM for the GM to approve, make suggestions to fit the campaign and setting, or reject.
b. discuss the mechanical build
c. present the character for review.
This ensures players create appropriate characters for the setting and table. If appropriate for the game, it allows the GM to work in backgrounds and goals.

This is super duper important. Aelfborn, you and I would get along well at the gaming table.


Drachasor wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
Evilserran wrote:
Mapleswitch wrote:
I also ban item combos and item/spell combos that create infinite gold creating loops.
... WHAT? I never heard of anything like that... can you give me a few examples? I have a gamer that would totally start doing this if they figured it out, if i know i can stop em before they begin.

One example is Robes of Infinite Twine (1,000g) - use it to pull out 10 feet of hemp rope every round. In an 8 hour work day, you can pull out 48,000 feet of hemp rope. Cut into 50 feet segments, selling them at 5 silver coins each - making yourself 480 gold per day. This item pays for itself in less than 3 days. There are many, many combos, special items like this one.

I banned it after a player used it. Also, for the rest of that adventure, npcs started building their houses out of rope. Need a bridge? Rope. Doorway get busted? Rope.

Eh, I don't see a need to ban it. If it got abused then nerfing it does just as good. Maybe the rope only lasts a week or disappears if the robe gets more than a mile away. Lots of ways to handle it.

Like finding enough people to buy 9 miles of rope every day.

201 to 250 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Banned Material in Your Games All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.