How do you decide which classes / races to exclude from your campaign?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder now has over 20 base classes. If you include third party material, it's over a hundred. The number of PC races is about the same.
So, when you're setting up your campaign, how do you decide which ones to say no to? Is it based on your personal tastes? Thematic reasons (for example, if there is no Asian-themed society in your world, the ninja and samurai would be out)? Balance? Have you ever excluded a whole category of spell casters, such as no arcane or no divine casters?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Only if the crunch is gamebreaking (in general or in this specific setting). I'm a big fan of reflavoring crunch to suit needs. A samurai is pretty much just a cavalier, a ninja is just a rogue with some magical talent.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I go in reverse; instead of deciding what to ban, I make a list of what is allowed based on what I can see fitting thematically into the world. If a player wants something that isn't on the list, it's their job to show me how it fits into the established world.


For races I figure what kind of setting I have and pick at least 8 races that fit in thematically and culturally, then add the races that are logical based on the setting's planar cosmology and the relationship between the setting and the planes and then ban all the rest.

For classes I divide the classes by technological levels and include whatever falls below the ceiling. For the most part only gunslinger gets banned unless I allow a supplement that lets the the gunslinger use grit for non-guns. Its usually the third party stuff that are high technology that are the main offenders but I generally only allow a few at a time based on the setting so I don't' necessarily have to ban things just say what I'm including.

It seems to work out from there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Only if the crunch is gamebreaking (in general or in this specific setting). I'm a big fan of reflavoring crunch to suit needs. A samurai is pretty much just a cavalier, a ninja is just a rogue with some magical talent.

This.

You want an assassin and you want to use bolt ace and ninja? Do it. Want a ninja but want to use vivisectionist alchemist and oracle? Do it. Want a Asian themed character and you choose the fighter class? Fine. Want an oriental themed shaman with ofuda, but would rather use a scroll focused elemental wizard for the concept? Do it. Want something monk-like but would rather have a better pool from which to customize your abilities? Psychic Warrior... (or sacred fist warpriest).

I talk it out with the players. It's their story, too.


Greatbear wrote:

Pathfinder now has over 20 base classes. If you include third party material, it's over a hundred. The number of PC races is about the same.

So, when you're setting up your campaign, how do you decide which ones to say no to? Is it based on your personal tastes? Thematic reasons (for example, if there is no Asian-themed society in your world, the ninja and samurai would be out)? Balance? Have you ever excluded a whole category of spell casters, such as no arcane or no divine casters?

Generally speaking I have not banned any classes or races. I only ban things in all of my games if I think they will cause a problem. That does not mean I think they are broken/OP. As an example I don't care for the summoner because too many people build them incorrectly, but I have not banned them YET.

For specific campaigns I may ban ___ if it gives someone too much of an advantage or it just does not make sense. I normally allow warforged(3.5)* from Eberron. I was going to run a game where the party was low on food and other supplies for the first few levels. However since warforged don't eat or need to drink combined with other traits they have it would reduce a lot of the challenge, so I would not allow them.

*with a few modifications.

My personal taste don't make me ban things, well except for that antagonize feat. I don't really care for the gunslinger or the alchemist. It is not that I dislike their mechanics, but I am not drawn to them. However I do allow them in my games.

As for the ninja and samurai thing I would not ban the classes because flavor can be changed into something else. As for the flavor I would not create a homebrew world with everything already in it. It would always have room to grow. As for now I just use published campaign settings, so I don't have to worry about it. Even then I will make room for what a player wants. It never bothers me if someone wants to be a ninja in a non-Asian setting. It is not like they are stuck in the Asian part of the world by some forcefield, and even so I would make up some reason as to how they got past it. They might even be trying to get back home.

PS: Balance can make me ban things, but I don't think too many things are broken. I also prefer to modify something than do a flat out ban.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

most classes are fine but ones that I sometimes ban for theme are witch and gunslinger.


Most races are included in my setting base on theme and niche, as well as power level when compared to humans. For example, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and elves aren't races in my campaign - their niche has been filled by other races and/or they don't fit thematically. In lieu of elves, I use the Sidhe and Sith, which are of fey origin, of my own design, and they're not color coded for your convenience (and neither are dragons, for that matter).

Classes tend to be a bit different. In Qi Xing, my Three Kingdoms style region, we use those classes which reflect Chinese archetypes, which are restricted in Western-based starting points. That's not to say they're banned, but if we're not doing a campaign in Qi Xing, the player has to explain through a well thought out background what he is doing on the other side of the world.

At the moment, the only class that I outright ban is gunslinger - it doesn't fit the setting and the firearm mechanics are horrible (in my opinion). My group seems to get their fix from SWSE when I run it, which has rules that make sense (mostly) regarding firearms.

My advice is similar to the above posters - decide what is included.

Shadow Lodge

I like to give a small list of what's available to use and say anything not on the list, ask me. I usually say OK, but doing it this way just lets me become familiar with classes/abilities/rules I don't already know.

If I ban something, it's almost always for thematic reasons. As long as you the GM knows what the PCs are capable of, you can design accordingly. Banning stuff for game balance is only necessary for pfs style games where you can't adjust the content to fit the players, so you have to limit the players to fit the content.


Usually thematic reasons.

My current homebrew world the races are the ones that are there. All the core are represented, minus elves (who have all been corrupted by chaos and are dark elves), several psionic races, Orcs, Cat Folk and Vanara. There's a lot of history for the races as why they are where they are. The players can only start as certain races depending on which side they start off on.

I allow pretty much every class, but I ban them to thematic archetypes. Its a low magic high tech (Not Paizo's tech mind you) world, so classes with crafting, lower magic and psionics, more skill points get love. A lot of my archetypes are hand written or third party.

I would ban Guns (obviously banning gunslingers) but I use penetration rating and that balances the weapon nicely.

I also generally won't allow necromancers or master summoners. If a player has super advanced skills and I know he's capable I'd probably consider it but both those classes can really bog the game down.


Our main DM has been using the same homebrew setting for about 15 years now, since we were playing 2E. it is a fully fleshed out world (he could write a fully detailed 300+ page campaign setting book if he wanted to).

For races he pretty much keeps it to core, with maybe an Aasimar here or a Tiefling there if a character comes up with a good story. Even gnomes weren't playable characters until he did a specific gnome only side campaign a couple of years ago that ended up bringing the race to the main continent. You will never see a party consisting of a Catfolk, Dhampir, Samsarans, Suli, and Vanara running around the world together in one of our campaigns.

For classes, so far the only one that is banned is Gunslinger (and firearms in general), for thematic purposes. Although no one in either of his groups has ever played a Summoner or does any ridiculous shenanigans, hell, I am pretty much the only one who regularly surfs online forums or has any serious optimization skills (though I usually tone it down).

All in all, our games tend to be pretty "classical".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I try not to ban anything, unless I think it's disruptive or overpowered (and there are very few things that I consider overpowered... Most of them are related to full casters).

Sometimes, depending on setting and whatnot, I might remove a few options, but never without asking my players their opinion. The GM will always have the final word, but he should always hear what his players have to say and take their opinions and preferences in consideration before deciding anything about the campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally, only things that are overpowered, or over-complicated. Since things can be easily re-flavored, there's no real reason to ban things for 'theme'.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Banned: gunslingers (not my sword & sorcery flavor of choice)
Relegated to NPC classes: witch and summoner (the latter is broken beyond repair, IMHO)
Races: on a case-by-case basis, whatever players want - IF they can come up with a convincing backstory to explain their presence in Golarion.

Aside from that, whatever players want to have fun with, eh?


When I DM (and to be honest I no longer do), I have a few classes banned as well as most non-core races.

Banned Classes:

Bard: I've said it before and I'll say it again- I find the idea of a man telling jokes or strumming the lute or giving speeches while other people are chucking fireballs or hacking off limbs to be irredeemably corny as a concept. Yes, battle musicians were an essential part of ancient warfare, but ten men out of a thousand playing the drums strikes me as making sense. One man out of five just seems extremely ridiculous to my mind. Unless you archetype out to a bard that drops performance I won't allow it.

Skald: The same reasoning applies. And sadly there is no equivalent of the archaeologist archetype for bards, so I don't think I'll ever see one at my table under any circumstances.

Summoner: Not outright banned, but you need to have experience playing at least one other character and demonstrate phenomenal system mastery before I let you touch this one.

Gunslinger: My thought on guns has always been the following: If they're here, my beautiful little fantasy world is about to be changed forever by steam power, industrial revolution and the end of knights on horseback. This class is a world killer in my opinion and represents the hottest of potatoes.

Asian classes: There is no equivalent to Asia in my world. Unless you want a samurai/ninja for mechanical purposes and can re-flavor yourself perfectly I won't allow it. This in part comes from my aversion to anime.

RACES:

Any core race is acceptable. I also have a fetish for tieflings and (don't make fun of me) kobolds, and so they're allowed. Anything else is a case by case ask-me basis. I also make sure that tieflings, kobolds and half orcs are thoroughly discriminated against as I despise political correctness.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Greatbear wrote:

Pathfinder now has over 20 base classes. If you include third party material, it's over a hundred. The number of PC races is about the same.

So, when you're setting up your campaign, how do you decide which ones to say no to? Is it based on your personal tastes? Thematic reasons (for example, if there is no Asian-themed society in your world, the ninja and samurai would be out)? Balance? Have you ever excluded a whole category of spell casters, such as no arcane or no divine casters?

I don't decide what to "exclude".

I decide what to INCLUDE. I include what fits. Or is appropriate. I may exclude races which are common in the world SPECIFICALLY becuase of the particulars of the campaign I'm running. If the campaign occurs in a secluded bay which has a Human only population, then Human is your one and only choice for character race.


Lemmy wrote:
(and there are very few things that I consider overpowered... Most of them are related to full casters).

I agree 100% with this.

I agree, in spirit, with some of the rest of your post, Lemmy - I often find myself in agreement with your opinions.

However, I didn't ask my players regarding firearms, for example. While a somewhat democratic table is expected and necessary for group cohesion and not being a wank in general, the reverse is also true - players need to ask and not expect that anything under the sun will be ADDED to a setting.

I guess what I'm saying is I agree that player input is valuable and necessary, but that players should also remember that just because Paizo releases it doesn't mean it's automatically added.

Androids, firearms, and space travel in my fantasy setting? No thanks.


As GM I decide what fits in with my vision of the world. At the moment Gunslingers are out (my world is not that advanced) as are Summoners (overpowered IMO). As for races any common and uncommon races minus those such as goblins or orcs which would be killed on sight by any sensible inhabitant of the world.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:

When I DM (and to be honest I no longer do), I have a few classes banned as well as most non-core races.

Banned Classes:

Bard: I've said it before and I'll say it again- I find the idea of a man telling jokes or strumming the lute or giving speeches while other people are chucking fireballs or hacking off limbs to be irredeemably corny as a concept. Yes, battle musicians were an essential part of ancient warfare, but ten men out of a thousand playing the drums strikes me as making sense. One man out of five just seems extremely ridiculous to my mind. Unless you archetype out to a bard that drops performance I won't allow it.

Skald: The same reasoning applies. And sadly there is no equivalent of the archaeologist archetype for bards, so I don't think I'll ever see one at my table under any circumstances.

Summoner: Not outright banned, but you need to have experience playing at least one other character and demonstrate phenomenal system mastery before I let you touch this one.

Gunslinger: My thought on guns has always been the following: If they're here, my beautiful little fantasy world is about to be changed forever by steam power, industrial revolution and the end of knights on horseback. This class is a world killer in my opinion and represents the hottest of potatoes.

Asian classes: There is no equivalent to Asia in my world. Unless you want a samurai/ninja for mechanical purposes and can re-flavor yourself perfectly I won't allow it. This in part comes from my aversion to anime.

RACES:

Any core race is acceptable. I also have a fetish for tieflings and (don't make fun of me) kobolds, and so they're allowed. Anything else is a case by case ask-me basis. I also make sure that tieflings, kobolds and half orcs are thoroughly discriminated against as I despise political correctness.

Ninjas and Samurai do not belong to Anime any more than annoying characters with high pitched voices do. No I am not trying to change you mind. Just making a point by comparison.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zolanoteph wrote:


Bard: I've said it before and I'll say it again- I find the idea of a man telling jokes or strumming the lute or giving speeches while other people are chucking fireballs or hacking off limbs to be irredeemably corny as a concept. Yes, battle musicians were an essential part of ancient warfare, but ten men out of a thousand playing the drums strikes me as making sense. One man out of five just seems extremely ridiculous to my mind. Unless you archetype out to a bard that drops performance I won't allow it.

See: Reflavoring.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Da'ath wrote:
I agree, in spirit, with some of the rest of your post, Lemmy - I often find myself in agreement with your opinions.

What a coincidence! I too often find myself in agreement with my opinions. ^^

Da'ath wrote:
However, I didn't ask my players regarding firearms, for example. While a somewhat democratic table is expected and necessary for group cohesion and not being a wank in general, the reverse is also true - players need to ask and not expect that anything under the sun will be ADDED to a setting.

I like Gunslingers... But I do agree that firearm rules are atrocious. One of the most poorly written rules in Pathfinder, in fact. I don't really think it's overpowered, I even GMed for an optimized dual-wielding Pistolero a while ago, but I do think it adds a lot of work to the GM for encounter design (but at least they don't have the ability to completely derail the campaign and bypass whole challenges like casters).

Still... That's just a matter of preference. I'm not against banning stuff (although I really do my best to avoid it at all costs!), but talking to your players is really essential, IMO.

e.g.: You don't like Gunslingers or Androids, but maybe someone really wants to use Gunsligers and another guy really likes Android... You can always talk to each other... Maybe the Gunslinger uses crossbows (There is even an archetype for that, now. It actually baffles me that it took that long for Paizo to publish it). The Android can be a intelligent golem or something.

When there is no compromise (which really never happened to me, but it's not impossible), check who is more passionate about it. Do you really care that much if there are Gunslingers? Or does the player like the class more than it bothers you?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying you should always allow whatever it is that you players are asking. Just talk to them beforehand. Maybe I'm just lucky to have good players, I don't know, but at least IME, players are most often willing to compromise and reach a reasonable agreement, especially when they know the GM is willing to do the same. :)


Lemmy wrote:
What a coincidence! I too often find myself in agreement with my opinions. ^^

I laughed, seriously.

Lemmy wrote:
...[stuff]...

I get where you're coming from. I'm the sort of GM who will bend over backwards (figuratively speaking) to help a player realize a concept. Your examples actually illustrate some of the efforts I've taken to compromise with my players.

While I don't like my peas invading my mashed potatoes (i.e. sci-fi invading my fantasy), I'm usually pretty easy to work with. One of our female players wanted to play using the mechanics of the gunslinger with the crossbow (not long after the class was published). Being aware of the fact firearms aren't included in my setting, she asked about a repeating crossbow, to which I immediately answered, "You bet." I adjusted mechanics and she got to play what she wanted. I've converted the gunslinger mechanics to a melee "adventurer/scoundrel" class for another player, as well.

I do have issues with the expectation from some players and GMs alike (mostly online - I've got a great group and we've all been playing for some 15 or so years together now), however, that because something is published, it has to be included.

One perfect example of a house rule we use for witches regards the slumber hex. GMs and players alike who're opposed to its removal will tell you all day long how you should include this or that to prevent its over use - in essence, instead of fixing the issue, you need to use the same old-hat trick over the course of every game and around 10+ levels in each game to balance around a single hex. I just moved slumber to the advanced hex category. Problem solved. Still useful, but not in every situation and I don't have to actively design encounters to account for it.

I'm going to stop now, because I'm going off-topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be honest there is too much I don't like about Pathfinder to ever run with it as written.


I call it "My Way or the Freeway".

Essentially if I'm going to put effort into making all these choices about a setting and how that relates to mechanics I either don't want anyone questioning my choices OR we can play a game where I lay down a tiny bit of flavor (because some things drive me mad and I don't want their flavor text no matter what) and everything else is made-up as we go along and all decisions about whether something should be banned shall be made by the players.


For races, no Androids or beast people other than Tengu. Tengu vaguely make sense on a floating continent. Other than that it's purely case by case.

Gunslingers are fine, Witches are fine, Summoners are judged case by case. Ninja and Samurai are tastefully reflavored. Wizards and Druids are allowed in multiclass characters only. The only class that is 100% banned is Arcanist, far too overpowered.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Two things limit what classes or races are available.

1 - your audience.
Players like or dislike a variety of things. Some like tech and some don't, which may mean removing androids and gunslingers from the playable choices. Some might really dislike specific races and classes, while others might be very open to lots of variety. This doesn't mean being a doormat to your players, yet if a few players are furryphobic then don't constantly throw tengu, catfolk, or kitsune in the campaign.

2 - The campaign theme
Different campaign worlds explore different aspects. Golarion is pretty well set out, and tends to be a mixing batch of anything that Paizo prints out. If the campaign is on a homebrew world, it may change as the GM sets it - and limited only by the GM. Want an over the top campaign? Allow players to make half-celestial PCs with mythic tiers, or dragons, or high level characters to stat out. Maybe another campaign will be human only and will stop PC advancement by 4th or 5th level for a gritty feel. All casters, no casters? Up to the theme. I made a campaign of all monks and had a classic 70s martial arts plot.

The key is to make a campaign that is fun for you and your players.

Sovereign Court

I don't ban classes or races, because at the end the day, the only thing that matters is what your players are doing. But then, I always go for high fantasy action/adventures like God of War, Devil May Cry. I don't worry much about the mechanics and top of it, a lot of races are already made to be quite rare, Aasimar and Tieflings for example aren't really that common and incorporating them into my settings won't change much of it.

I tend to keep technology up to renaissance era at most.


It's a flavor thing with me. I don't give a rat's anything about crunch or "power levels" or whatever. For example, there is no equivalent to a Chinese or Japanese civilization in my homebrew. Ninjas and Samurai don't fit. Nor does gunpowder, so gunslingers don't exist. In fact, even if I allowed gunslingers no one would play them and they've said as much.

I'd love to ban all races but Humans, but I allow them because my players really want the other choices. Again, it's a flavor thing and nothing to do with crunch or whether or not something is over or under powered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
For example, there is no equivalent to a Chinese or Japanese civilization in my homebrew. Ninjas and Samurai don't fit.

See: Reflavoring. Rogue with magic tricks, and a fighter with different tricks. Done.


Yeah, but *I'd* know they weren't the same as tricked out rogues or fighters. I've actually done this to create an NPC and it still didn't "feel" right.


Lemmy wrote:

I try not to ban anything, unless I think it's disruptive or overpowered (and there are very few things that I consider overpowered... Most of them are related to full casters).

Sometimes, depending on setting and whatnot, I might remove a few options, but never without asking my players their opinion. The GM will always have the final word, but he should always hear what his players have to say and take their opinions and preferences in consideration before deciding anything about the campaign.

Basically this. In my group, we generally decide together on a tier to aim for (usually 3) before starting a new campaign. This roughly grades the classes in terms of more or less mechanical suitability, guiding character creation. It also gives me as a DM a fair idea on what to expect, making it much easier for me to start planning the campaign to suit with the future party's overall power level.

I trust my players to have the system mastery required to create characters mechanically balanced to their fellow party members, or the sense to ask for assistance in case they find themselves lacking the char-op-fu or time needed to realize their concept. And in case some mechanical component/combo later turns out to be problematic, it's rarely difficult to fix with a houserule or a homebrew replacement.

I typically only ban fluff that don't go with the setting and ask the player(s) to come up with suitable replacement fluff (or write it myself) if they want to use related mechanics. The one exception to this is typically full casters or spells above 6th level, simply because they tend to make it near impossible for a DM to create/tweak a storyline and challenges that don't get bypassed completely and/or turn PF into "Casters & Minions - Leads & Extras", a game which is usually regarded as a lot less fun, IME...

With the Path of War classes it's now also finally easy to realize virtually any martial-type character concept in a build versatile/powerful enough for tier 3, even for players without a PhD in char-op and tons of free time. I'd judge other 3PP stuff on a case-by-case basis in discussion with the player, but I seriously doubt I'd ever need to flat-out ban anything my players would suggest.

Similar to Lemmy I guess, I'm probably really spoiled, having very experienced players who are also good friends.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Yeah, but *I'd* know they weren't the same as tricked out rogues or fighters. I've actually done this to create an NPC and it still didn't "feel" right.

Dunno what to say, then. I've never had any issue with it whatsoever.

Dark Archive

I ask players to keep their race choices to the standard 7 plus ARG races of 10 points or less. I would even let someone power down to a 10 point version of Aasimar, Tiefling, Tengue. Not sure I would allow powered down versions of other races though, I would have to take a look at them before giving an approval. I do this because I don't believe in giving away a bunch of free power away. Though I have noticed that not every race ability will be played out to the max so I might be a little over concerned. I have even considered giving the players the freedom to get an extra ability off their race if the race is normally less then 10 points.

Though I did ban in one campaign and alter in a later campaign the Entobian 3pp race. I was not letting someone have an extra set of arms for free. Getting a third arm costs a minimum of 8 points in the ARG and 12 for a fourth. Plus they had several other features, several of witch did not make sense to me.

I have not banned classes. I have banned the use of undead. I will not tolerate a spell that lasts days, months even at a time. Especially with these bloody skeletons that are likely to rise again an hour after they are destroyed unless someone poured holy water in it during a fight. That is after it goes down, but before the fight is over because the PCs are still alive.

I have a very suspicious eye on the awesome display from the oracle of heavens.

And if you bring me some third party published material and I say no, you don't get to present another ,10 3pp products until I say yes. You only have one 3pp presentation per campaign.


It really all depends on campaign milieu. If I am running a War of the Lance era Dragonlance campaign, there wont be any Half-Orcs, Halflings, Sorcerers, Oracles, Summoners, or Gunslingers, and Alchemist will be a Tinker Gnome only class. There will be Minotaurs and Kender though. ;)

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I tie the names of the various classes to some snails, then attach tiny flails to their eyestalks and let them battle to the death. The survivors remain in my campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The_Superior_Dudemeister wrote:
I tie the names of the various classes to some snails, then attach tiny flails to their eyestalks and let them battle to the death. The survivors remain in my campaign.

I'd love to all loaded up on vodka and pain pills and watch this.


Zhayne wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Yeah, but *I'd* know they weren't the same as tricked out rogues or fighters. I've actually done this to create an NPC and it still didn't "feel" right.
Dunno what to say, then. I've never had any issue with it whatsoever.

Eh, nothing to say. Of the three classes I've mentioned, the Ninja is the only one I'd consider if someone really wanted to play it. Super (now Rogue) Genius Games has the Wolf Head version of the Ninja, a more western flavor type. I'd forgotten about it until just a few minutes ago. That one's just different enough I wouldn't have much of a problem allowing it, if my players would consider a 3PP. I'd love for them to, but that would be a thread derail and I'll just let it go at that.. lol


I allow all classes, and all core, uncommon, featured, and otherwise under 20 rp races that are made by Paizo.


Zhayne wrote:
Generally, only things that are overpowered, or over-complicated. Since things can be easily re-flavored, there's no real reason to ban things for 'theme'.

Classes can be reflavored, but I figure doing that is the player's responsibility. Alternatively, they can come up with a reason their character is thousands of miles from home. Reflavoring a race to make it fit is generally a lot harder, though, so the player almost has to go with the far from home idea if they're determined to play something odd.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not really, there is a lot of reasons to put odd races into certain adventures that don't use the 'far from home' idea. Exotic races can be be former slaves, known mercenaries, wilderness guides, or the people that perform certain tasks that others find unsavory.

take my Gnoll barbarian named Puppy for example:

This was for Curse of the Crimson Throne

Puppy was bought on the black market as a pup by Lamm in hopes of being a ruthless enforcer. But when he couldn't get the gnoll child to savage the other children he beat the gnoll nearly to death and dumped him on a garbage barge.

Puppy was pretty much forced to survive on Korvosa's cast offs, and was taken on as the equivalent of a garbage man and sewer cleaner. (both dangerous enough jobs to warrant weapons and nasty enough that no 'core' race would want to do it.)

So of course he jumped at the chance to even the score with Lamm, his childhood timidity replaced by the adult nightmare Lamm had hoped to create to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Banned: gunslingers (not my sword & sorcery flavor of choice). . . .

Whaaaat?... Who doesn't like a magical gunman that may or may not net you style points?

Oh... several apparently... Keep smiling and back away slowly, Te'Shen...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh Tripod Redirect Image, it's been so long since I've seen you.

Also that Gun Mage is so saved. Thanks!

Anyway.

I ban almost nothing. I encourage my players to try out new races, homebrewed stuff, 3rd-party stuff, and a great deal more.

The only thing I prohibit is gunslinger and tech-based classes IF the campaign is set in the earlier portions of my group's homebrew setting's timeline, which is rare - as the Age of Steam draws near, I allow those classes more and more; that Age takes up the largest playable portion of the setting's timeline, because I am a major, major fan of Final Fantasy VI's late-1800s aesthetics. Steampunk/Dieselpunk plus Magic and Magitek is my flavor of choice for a setting.


Depends on the setting at large, and where the campaign takes place in said world.

However, I am very much against banning things (especially races) unless they go way out of hand.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally, if I'm running a game, I'm running it because my players want to play it, and so anything they want to play, whether it fits a pre-constructed setting, or my own personal tastes, is on the table as long as it isn't unbalanced in a way that would make the game unfun for some or all of them (when *everyone* wants to play something unbalanced, like our old 'monster campaigns' where ogre magi was a perfectly valid player race, then, it's on!).

We do play a lot of superhero games, where a robot, an alien, a demigod and a mutant sorceress are perfectly acceptable 'party members.' (Then again, that's not an impossible party to see in Alkenstar or Numeria...)


There's "banned" and there's "not allowed".

"Banned" applies to things that exist in 3.5/PF official rulebooks that is too broken or too much of a hassle. The Synthesist Summoner and the 3.5 spell "Ice Knife" are respective examples. The first is broken (since it's only ever used for dips and getting around stat limitations), the other requires too much time and effort for too little gain (attack roll, damage roll 1, save roll, damage roll 2, all in a 2nd level single-target spell). Basically, this is the stuff that's blacklisted.

Races? Pretty much any that have more than 11 RP. For every 'ten' past that, it's +1 Level Adjustment. The only 'banned' race I have is the Grippli and any version of Gnome, and those are for campaign reasons (and personal bias against such 'silly' races). Some races get modified a bit to fit (Aasimar/Tiefling get only one Energy Resistance, for instance, and thus don't have LA issues).

Some are restricted for story or timeline reasons. In my home campaign there are three 'Ages' of which the 2nd and 3rd are playable (the 1st being unplayable to characters and exists for story background purposes). Some races are unavailable in certain Ages, but they tend to be the weird ones. Warforged, for instance, were created at the end of the 2nd Age by an Elven nation which was destroyed, and so are only available in the 3rd. Some Dwarven subraces 'disappeared' (actually went home to their original plane) at the end of that Age, and so are only available in the 2nd, etc.

As for classes, almost all are allowed, it's just some Archetypes (Summoner's Synthesist) that are banned. However, there are 'achievement gates' which the party must accomplish before being allowed to use certain classes. Usually this occurs when they encounter them as enemies or allies for a stint, at which point they are 'unlocked'. Gunslingers and the Book of Nine Swords classes, for instance, aren't available until the average party level is 4. Since I've set up in-game ways to exchange class levels at certain points, they don't have to die to make new ones, they can reverse-engineer current characters.

Then there's the straight-up banned stuff, which is basically everything from Forgotten Realms. It's generally easier to just ban the whole heap than sort out the few good nuggets.

"Not allowed" applies to most 3rd party stuff. It's not Banned, because it doesn't belong there to begin with. It has to be whitelisted in. So far, nobody has really wanted to, so it's not too big of an issue. Even if I did allow it, I'd have to have the book or PDF myself to review first, so there's that.

Oh, and Te'Shen, it's funny you should try to link that. We have Caster Weapons. ;)


I'm going to ban or restrict anything it is based on what exists in the setting and what fits the themes and tone I'm trying to set for the game. No gunslingers in a stone age game. No Aliens in Victorian London.

Third Party sources get reviewed for balance as well as fitting the game, but I'm usually to one putting forward third party material, so it isn't ever an actual issue I run into.

That said, I usually play games where pretty much anything is allowed. Third party sources always require approval, and any characters made get checked by me with the players justifying their choices, but I'm very open to crazy builds.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hark wrote:
No Aliens in Victorian London.

No Doctor Who (season 8!) for you, eh?

Really, Victorian London is just crying for aliens!

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I feel Game Masters should try to work with players and allow them to play what they want in a way that fits with the campaign. As a result, I only ban based on the character concept's flavor rather than the flavor of classes or other options.. Most classes/mechanics can either be:
1) Reflavored to work in the campaign. For example, I can refluff the Numerian content as ancient magitech or Psionics as mages that rely on emotions or ki.

2) Fixed/patched/houseruled to be less problematic. For example, I could homebrew an alternate version of the synthesist if a player really wanted to play that. I recently made a deal with my gunslinger player to nix touch attacks from firearms in exchange for class fixes and provide more interesting weapon choices than just pistols and muskets.

In terms of flavor, I avoid psionics and science fiction (though magitech exists). While I'm cool with a player refluffing a psionic class, psionics strike me as something an aberrant and monstrous, not a power that a PC can casually tap into it. In my campaign, the only humanoids that can do psychic stuff should Dark Tapestry cultists and similar insane people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is a perfect example of several aspects common to every forum I've ever read or contributed to:

I. Wide Spectrum: You have a range of people (old and young, novice and veteran) and GMing styles from every extreme and place in between: from "my way or the highway", to "anything goes".

The above posts clearly illustrate that there are many methods to the madness and that you, as GM, need to find the sweet spot for your group. Any new posts will just be regurgitation of this with little deviation or complete off-topic (not to indicate that is a bad thing).

II. I'm not going into the second aspect, as it will turn into an off-topic rant, and I'm trying to be less of an ass these days.


It's usually dead simple to have a 'one-off' race in a game world, if you have a multiplanar cosmology. People and things from other dimensions drop in all the time. Plus, there's always the idea of wizard experiments, random mutations, and all that. In Golarion, you even have the potential to be an alien.

Nothing says you have to be a 'race' of more than one.

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / How do you decide which classes / races to exclude from your campaign? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.