First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?
Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell Compendium
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
The original post was much longer, and better argued, but I was on a roll, and I cant repeat it. I attempted to answer all responses that may have come in the original post. :(
PS: I am not saying nothing is broken, and I know everything(most theoretical builds) dont even need to be played to know they are broken.
|
Handy hint for maintaining sanity when fighting the Post-Eating Monster: Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C before hitting Submit. :)
I've never banned something for being "broken" but I have banned things for not fitting my campaign setting or adventure plans: warforged, psionics, Tome of Battle, and Reserve Feats come to mind.
My other problem with unique sub-systems is that they give a significant advantage to a single player unless everyone uses them.
As a general discussion post in this thread I've had one thing work very well for me when I find something I think maybe overpowered:
I use it against my players first. Seriously I sit there and look at it and I'm like "No way it's too much won't go well." Then I put in the next go around as a DM and let the players solve it for me. Those little so-and-so's almost always find something I missed, and take it out without too much problem.
So my answer is: Throw it against the PCs and see what happens.
|
|
As a general discussion post in this thread I've had one thing work very well for me when I find something I think maybe overpowered:
I use it against my players first. Seriously I sit there and look at it and I'm like "No way it's too much won't go well." Then I put in the next go around as a DM and let the players solve it for me. Those little so-and-so's almost always find something I missed, and take it out without too much problem.
So my answer is: Throw it against the PCs and see what happens.
I've also done the reverse - throw an uber-PC build right back at them and they realize pretty quickly they are stepping on others' toes.
Honestly, I think it is a knee jerk reaction to a common problem. At the risk of sounding condescending, it is the easy way out.
The problem I see with banning things out of hand like this is that it never solves the underlying problem. You have a power gamer on your hands. A well trained power gamer can be a GM's best friend. You have to get them to stop trying to break your game first.
Why?
Because people lives proving they're right, that's why. Even if you explain them how so-and-so rule/class feature/spell actually works they'll either:
a) Call you names and say you're wrong.
b) Come up with some other reason to hate it, because they -need- to be right.
Being objective, every system has loopholes, every system can be abused, but every time you ban or nerf something you're taking away options from the players. There are only two ways around this problem:
a) Nerf -everything- so nothing can be "abused".
b) Stop worrying about how the system can be abused by people you wouldn't play with anyway, and have fun with the people you actually care to play the game with.
Call me arrogant, call me a picky pr1ck, but I prefer to play with adults so I don't have to treat them like children.
Generally, if I disallow something it's more likely that I don't like the feel of it, it doesn't suit my game or I just think it's plain stupid.
Balance is rarely a factor for me throwing anything out non-core since I think the most unbalanced material is core. Especially since, even if it is broken, it won't likely be seen IG, unless it's a one-off suited to the adventure being played or the player makes it powerful.
As a general discussion post in this thread I've had one thing work very well for me when I find something I think maybe overpowered:
I use it against my players first. Seriously I sit there and look at it and I'm like "No way it's too much won't go well." Then I put in the next go around as a DM and let the players solve it for me. Those little so-and-so's almost always find something I missed, and take it out without too much problem.
So my answer is: Throw it against the PCs and see what happens.
I have done this as well. If its too mean for me to use it against the PC's I dont let them use it against my NPC's. That is how I decided not to use the Splitting enhancement.
b) Stop worrying about how the system can be abused by people you wouldn't play with anyway, and have fun with the people you actually care to play the game with.
This is the best bet...
To be honest though I think of rules and game balance discussions as mental exercises though. I don't care what other people play. Some people play a wide open game with everything out there, some people play pretty close to core... I tend to fall into the latter category. Both types of gaming and everything between are perfectly valid.
I like debating rules because it challenges me to think about them more and because it's fun to think of the game as a system.
If I get my back up on occasion... well then I'm being a jerk and should probably be told I am :)
For a question of "Why do I ban things in my games?" I'll go through these in order:
1. Monks: I don't so much ban monks as have them as wandering holy men from the East since I tend to run a European fairytale campaign. If for some reason the East were cut off, then monks would be too.
2. Psionics: I'm running a European fairytale campaign. Psionics don't fit, and especially the bizarre silly names and jargon that goes with them. What the hell is a dorje anyway? And magic that's not magic makes magic less special. FWIW, Mindflayers are also Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture, so it's not a great hardship. And while there are maenads, they're wild drunk women, not telepaths.
3. Tomb of Battle: I assume you mean "tome" but as I said "Magic that's not magic makes magic less special." If the fighter runs around and leaves a wall of flame behind him, it's probably magic. Having it not detect as magic just makes it extra cheesy magic. And I'm basing stuff on the tales of Madame D'Aulnoy rather than Dragonball Z. In other words, I'm not running an Anime game.
4. Pathfinder Warlock: Which one? All I've seen is the 3.5 warlock, and I've banned that in my current game because I don't want any player character with a direct connection to Hell or to Fairyland for that matter, and yes, the two are linked.
5. Spell Compendium: Because some spells are too powerful. Solipsism can wreck a game. If you want something minor from that book, I'll do it on a case by case basis, but I will not allow the entire cheese of the month club just because it was once published somewhere.
But basically, the reason why I ban things is Rule 0: My world, my rules.
|
I disagree with the tone of the OP. It sounds like anyone that bans stuff is a moron in his eyes that didn't properly use the rules or is too dumb to fix the broken parts of a book.
I set up a campaign, tailored several mini-arcs to the various PCs' background stories, worked new foes into the path, and all the other hugely time-consuming duties that a DM does. A couple of guys just got Tome of Battle and wanted to try it out. A quick scan saw some cool stuff but at a glance nothing too overpowered.... That book tossed the entire campaign into turmoil from level 3 to level 11 when I finally banned it. The rules were gone over several times(not just by me) to be sure they were being used correctly and that something wasn't missed. Several questions were posted and answered on different forums confirming the proper rules usage.
Now what? I as DM have to spend days mulling over a book trying to figure out how to incorporate and adjust the rules so that each of the TOB guys aren't worth 2 of the other guys in the party or just cut the loses and ban the book?
I banned it. People ban stuff because it doesn't work either because it is a crappy book that was made by a company testing out a new mechanic, it doesn't fit their campaign's flavor, they don't have the time to fix a book of rules and run an intense campaign or any of a plethora of reasons.
To decide that anyone who bans something is not using the rules correctly or is lazy or something is just rude. Maybe the OP just doesn't have people in his group that like to optimize or has never been confronted with the truly tough things in certain books but I have and instead of houseruling a billion bits of rules, I would rather just ban and save the time to work on the storyline of the game.
First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell CompendiumWhy do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
The original post was much longer, and better argued, but I was on a roll, and I cant repeat it. I attempted to answer all responses that may have come in the original post. :(
PS: I am not saying nothing is broken, and I know everything(most theoretical builds) dont even need to be played to know they are broken.
I'm a little confused as to whether you are objecting to people banning books or people posting about it on the internet, losing an argument and then banning a book. Consequently this may not answer your question, since I ban things but dont usually bother arguing about it on the internet first.
The simple reason is time. Now that I'm a grown up, I dont have the time to read through all those books and try and work out how they all work together and what the inherent limitations and balances are which have been put in place. I might use bits and pieces from here and there, but the only things my players can know for sure are in the gameworld I run are things from the PH, DMG and MM.
Spell compendium, tome of battle and psionics are the things I've pretty much banned from your list (although psionics is more about flavor than any balance issue). It's easier to say no and then allow an exception than to say yes and try to reel back some unintended consequence later.
First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Adding more rules to fix rules is a bad bad bad way to balance anything.
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?
Beats me.
Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Dunno. Might not fit the campaign world.
Psionics
It hasn't been Pathfinderized yet. Other than that, flavor reasons are probably a good reason. Other people just don't like the system.
Tomb of Battle
This was an attempt to make warrior types balance with spellcasters. A lot of DMs embraced this book but got burned by it and won't touch it ever again. There's some gross stuff in there. Pathfinder classes are balanced so DMs don't have to feel like they should allow it if they don't like it. It's also a tad over the top, too.
Pathfinder Warlock
I haven't seen the Pathfinder Warlock. If it's anything like the old Warlock, then I can see why some DMs don't want to see it in their game. I can't comment on whether it's overpowered or not, though. Just the general concept. Some DMs don't want ANOTHER system in their game.
Spell Compendium
There are 623,345,512 spells in this book. Some of them are balanced while others are not. Some DMs (this one included) do not have time to read every one of them. Plus, it isn't Pathfinderized.
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
It's not about skewing someone's opinion. It's about a DM having control over their game. They must maintain order for the good of the game. Sometimes you don't get every option you want. There's enough out there to play a dynamic and fun character.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
DMs can't include a counterpoint to everything in a splatbook or other supplement in their game. It's a monumental task that I would not envy on anyone. I am very wary of what I allow these days because of my past experiences of running a no-holds-barred campaign that allowed any WotC book, class, spell, whatever.
I, for one, have all but closed the door on any non-Pathfinder RPG source for now, plus whatever I add to my campaign website. If the players want something from another source, they can bring it to me to argue for its inclusion. This way, I can keep track of everything going into my world and make adjustments as needed.
I spent my entire Savage Tide campaign trying to counter the various spells and abilities my players were coming out with. It gets tiring having to revamp every encounter in an adventure to compensate for some of the crazy shit the players can pull (particularly in a high level 3E game with access to splat books). I didn't like to ban things out of hand, but it takes a lot time and energy to constantly be trying to counter things, and sometimes countering abilities is hard to justify because it doesn't make any sense in terms of the story.
We had a gish in our party with the abjurant champion prestige class who could get his AC up to 44 by about 13th level. He was able to use wraith strike so that he pretty much only had to beat a touch AC and then could use the arcane strike feat to channel loads of damage into the target by dumping spell levels. It was actually a pretty cool build and I liked the character, but the baddies couldn't really hit him unless I first debuffed him to bring his AC down. I won't get into all the details, but it was constant back and forth where I would find a weakness to exploit and he would look for a way to defend against it (and vice versa). This can be fun to an extent, but being a dm is a big job, and in the long run it can become more of a pain in the ass than anything else. It's nice when you can throw a monster against a party that is supposed to be challenging to them, and have it actually be challenging without having to heavily modify it.
First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell CompendiumWhy do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
The original post was much longer, and better argued, but I was on a roll, and I cant repeat it. I attempted to answer all responses that may have come in the original post. :(
PS: I am not saying nothing is broken, and I know everything(most theoretical builds) dont even need to be played to know they are broken.
|
I spent my entire Savage Tide campaign trying to counter the various spells and abilities my players were coming out with. It gets tiring having to revamp every encounter in an adventure to compensate for some of the crazy s~@% the players can pull (particularly in a high level 3E game with access to splat books). I didn't like to ban things out of hand, but it takes a lot time and energy to constantly be trying to counter things, and sometimes countering abilities is hard to justify because it doesn't make any sense in terms of the story.
We had a gish in our party with the abjurant champion prestige class who could get his AC up to 44 by about 13th level. He was able to use wraith strike so that he pretty much only had to beat a touch AC and then could use the arcane strike feat to channel loads of damage into the target by dumping spell levels. It was actually a pretty cool build and I liked the character, but the baddies couldn't really hit him unless I first debuffed him to bring his AC down. I won't get into all the details, but it was constant back and forth where I would find a weakness to exploit and he would look for a way to defend against it (and vice versa). This can be fun to an extent, but being a dm is a big job, and in the long run it can become more of a pain in the ass than anything else. It's nice when you can throw a monster against a party that is supposed to be challenging to them, and have it actually be challenging without having to heavily modify it.
^this.
This is why I ban things, to end an arms race from getting out of hand. When you allow the players access to everything under the sun, the arms race begins. At first its being level 3 and forcing enemies to do whatever you want. Then it slowly escalates. This is the problem with letting things get out of hand.
Its also tiring for a DM to work through. Sometimes, its more tiring than running the encounter.
Evasion is overpowering so I have to take two levels of Rogue.
For a question of "Why do I ban things in my games?" I'll go through these in order:
1. Monks: I don't so much ban monks as have them as wandering holy men from the East since I tend to run a European fairytale campaign. If for some reason the East were cut off, then monks would be too.
2. Psionics: I'm running a European fairytale campaign. Psionics don't fit, and especially the bizarre silly names and jargon that goes with them. What the hell is a dorje anyway? And magic that's not magic makes magic less special. FWIW, Mindflayers are also Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture, so it's not a great hardship. And while there are maenads, they're wild drunk women, not telepaths.
3. Tomb of Battle: I assume you mean "tome" but as I said "Magic that's not magic makes magic less special." If the fighter runs around and leaves a wall of flame behind him, it's probably magic. Having it not detect as magic just makes it extra cheesy magic. And I'm basing stuff on the tales of Madame D'Aulnoy rather than Dragonball Z. In other words, I'm not running an Anime game.
4. Pathfinder Warlock: Which one? All I've seen is the 3.5 warlock, and I've banned that in my current game because I don't want any player character with a direct connection to Hell or to Fairyland for that matter, and yes, the two are linked.
5. Spell Compendium: Because some spells are too powerful. Solipsism can wreck a game. If you want something minor from that book, I'll do it on a case by case basis, but I will not allow the entire cheese of the month club just because it was once published somewhere.
But basically, the reason why I ban things is Rule 0: My world, my rules.
That should have been Pathfinder Paladin. I was so upset at the post eating I could not type correctly if I put that.
For a question of "Why do I ban things in my games?" I'll go through these in order:
1. Monks: I don't so much ban monks as have them as wandering holy men from the East since I tend to run a European fairytale campaign. If for some reason the East were cut off, then monks would be too.
2. Psionics: I'm running a European fairytale campaign. Psionics don't fit, and especially the bizarre silly names and jargon that goes with them. What the hell is a dorje anyway? And magic that's not magic makes magic less special. FWIW, Mindflayers are also Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture, so it's not a great hardship. And while there are maenads, they're wild drunk women, not telepaths.
3. Tomb of Battle: I assume you mean "tome" but as I said "Magic that's not magic makes magic less special." If the fighter runs around and leaves a wall of flame behind him, it's probably magic. Having it not detect as magic just makes it extra cheesy magic. And I'm basing stuff on the tales of Madame D'Aulnoy rather than Dragonball Z. In other words, I'm not running an Anime game.
4. Pathfinder Warlock: Which one? All I've seen is the 3.5 warlock, and I've banned that in my current game because I don't want any player character with a direct connection to Hell or to Fairyland for that matter, and yes, the two are linked.
5. Spell Compendium: Because some spells are too powerful. Solipsism can wreck a game. If you want something minor from that book, I'll do it on a case by case basis, but I will not allow the entire cheese of the month club just because it was once published somewhere.
But basically, the reason why I ban things is Rule 0: My world, my rules.
Your rulings seem to be because of flavor, not brokenness unproved.
I disagree with the tone of the OP. It sounds like anyone that bans stuff is a moron in his eyes that didn't properly use the rules or is too dumb to fix the broken parts of a book.
I set up a campaign, tailored several mini-arcs to the various PCs' background stories, worked new foes into the path, and all the other hugely time-consuming duties that a DM does. A couple of guys just got Tome of Battle and wanted to try it out. A quick scan saw some cool stuff but at a glance nothing too overpowered.... That book tossed the entire campaign into turmoil from level 3 to level 11 when I finally banned it. The rules were gone over several times(not just by me) to be sure they were being used correctly and that something wasn't missed. Several questions were posted and answered on different forums confirming the proper rules usage.
Now what? I as DM have to spend days mulling over a book trying to figure out how to incorporate and adjust the rules so that each of the TOB guys aren't worth 2 of the other guys in the party or just cut the loses and ban the book?
I banned it. People ban stuff because it doesn't work either because it is a crappy book that was made by a company testing out a new mechanic, it doesn't fit their campaign's flavor, they don't have the time to fix a book of rules and run an intense campaign or any of a plethora of reasons.To decide that anyone who bans something is not using the rules correctly or is lazy or something is just rude. Maybe the OP just doesn't have people in his group that like to optimize or has never been confronted with the truly tough things in certain books but I have and instead of houseruling a billion bits of rules, I would rather just ban and save the time to work on the storyline of the game.
I dont remember if I put it in only my eaten post or the redux, but I do beleive DM's not having time to overlook things is valid reason to not allow something.
Warlock should have been on one line, and the Pathfinder Paladin on a different line.
That list is not something I am asking for an individual explanation on. It was just a sample list.
I spent my entire Savage Tide campaign trying to counter the various spells and abilities my players were coming out with. It gets tiring having to revamp every encounter in an adventure to compensate for some of the crazy s#!& the players can pull (particularly in a high level 3E game with access to splat books). I didn't like to ban things out of hand, but it takes a lot time and energy to constantly be trying to counter things, and sometimes countering abilities is hard to justify because it doesn't make any sense in terms of the story.
We had a gish in our party with the abjurant champion prestige class who could get his AC up to 44 by about 13th level. He was able to use wraith strike so that he pretty much only had to beat a touch AC and then could use the arcane strike feat to channel loads of damage into the target by dumping spell levels. It was actually a pretty cool build and I liked the character, but the baddies couldn't really hit him unless I first debuffed him to bring his AC down. I won't get into all the details, but it was constant back and forth where I would find a weakness to exploit and he would look for a way to defend against it (and vice versa). This can be fun to an extent, but being a dm is a big job, and in the long run it can become more of a pain in the ass than anything else. It's nice when you can throw a monster against a party that is supposed to be challenging to them, and have it actually be challenging without having to heavily modify it.
...First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell CompendiumWhy do you go online cry about something
Sounds like my players, bastards, just joking. Those guys are way to smart for my(not a typo) own good however, and I understand what you mean.
They are bastards actually, but if you ask them they'll say the same thing about me.
So my answer is: Throw it against the PCs and see what happens.I've also done the reverse - throw an uber-PC build right back at them and they realize pretty quickly they are stepping on others' toes.
Short Story: We spent a good deal of a 2 year 3.5E campaign fighting an ALMOST mirror enemy party... the first 2-3 fights were a draw as their intentions were not to beat US, but to beat us to an item and then leave.(Like JERKS!)
The last fight ended poorly for them once we figured out a few things... you don't fight YOUR mirror, you beat up on someone else's.
The best part of all that, when our female elf cleric grappled & pinned the enemy male human wizard so he couldn't use his teleport item... that was the end of the enemy group.
-----------------------
EDIT: On topic, most DMs that I know have 1 or 2 pet peeves with one thing or another. It's really not uncommon to have missing non-core material at any given table. The most VALID reason I've heard to date, "I don't own the book and would prefer to use only the content I'm familiar with.", I don't find that at all unreasonable.
They are bastards actually, but if you ask them they'll say the same thing about me.
I was talking about my players, but if yours fit then feel free to add them. :)
For a question of "Why do I ban things in my games?" I'll go through these in order:
1. Monks: I don't so much ban monks as have them as wandering holy men from the East since I tend to run a European fairytale campaign. If for some reason the East were cut off, then monks would be too.
2. Psionics: I'm running a European fairytale campaign. Psionics don't fit, and especially the bizarre silly names and jargon that goes with them. What the hell is a dorje anyway?
...
Well if you want to know what is what, then google it :D
Here is what wikipedia says about the Dorje.Aside from that the Psions can be just another wanderers from far far away, but I agree that everything should support and be supported by the theme of the game overall.
Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell Compendium
Well why do I want to spend time fixing something that should work? If a rule or class,feat,spell or what have you is a real issue I just toss it
1. Monks I have no issue with em
2. Nope will not use if I want to play an animi game I'll play BESM or something
3. Eh that book needs alot , I mean alot of work. It was not ready think of it as a beta. So no I will not allow anything from it without reworking
4. To many over powered, broken spells that do not fit the system. So I ban it. I may allow one or 2 in but I do not have the time to fix them all
EDIT: On topic, most DMs that I know have 1 or 2 pet peeves with one thing or another. It's really not uncommon to have missing non-core material at any given table. The most VALID reason I've heard to date, "I don't own the book and would prefer to use only the content I'm familiar with.", I don't find that at all unreasonable.
This is very reasonable. I dont think it makes sense to allow something if you dont understand how it works.
Off-topic: I dont get the ToB feels anime or magical argument at all.
The reason this is off topic is because the original topic is broken=banned, and saying it is anime=I dont like feel of it so I ban it.
The rogue with improved evasion that chose to fail a reflex save,but still only takes half damage. If that were a ToB power that would clearly be a point against ToB.
The monk is full of supernatural abilities.
The Swordsage is magical to an extent, but they state that up front. The other two classes are just based on natural ability.
There was thread on the other site for this but since the forum change a lot of the old stuff has been lost.
Well why do I want to spend time fixing something that should work?
??
To many of us it just not fit the feel of the games we want to run. When I read ToB i think of something like Bleach. And yes thats kinda how it comes off as a DBZ super mystical powered secret sword technical fighter.
Now this word work fine for some games but it brakes the feel of most setting for me to have soulreaper like powers with there mystic fighting styles
I do not want magic using melee class.
To many of us it just not fit the feel of the games we want to run. When I read ToB i think of something like Bleach. And yes thats kinda how it comes off as a DBZ super mystical powered secret sword technical fighter.
Now this word work fine for some games but it brakes the feel of most setting for me to have soulreaper like powers with there mystic fighting styles
I do not want magic using melee class.
Fair enough, it feels magicky to you.
Well why do I want to spend time fixing something that should work???
Pretty easy to see man, if a books spell, feats or what have you work, I should not have to make them work with core. I do not want to convert 3.5 spells that did not play well with core 3.5 spells
Hell I had to convert and rework em for 3.5 why the hell would I waste my time doing every spell, feat or class in a book like that?
It does, may be ok for a game designed with those in mind, but feels tacked on and out of place for a standard game
Well why do I want to spend time fixing something that should work???Pretty easy to see man, if a books spell, feats or what have you work, I should not have to make them work with core. I do not want to convert 3.5 spells that did not play well with core 3.5 spells
Hell I had to convert and rework em for 3.5 why the hell would I waste my time doing every spell, feat or class in a book like that?
I did not know what you were referring to specifically. I also did not know you went through the trouble of redoing core. I honestly would stop playing a system before I would rewrite it. I understand you did not rewrite everything, but it sounds like you went through more trouble than most people would.
eh I did not rewrite core. What I meant was some stuff does not work well with core. Don't get me wrong some good stuff in some of them book's but allow anything and everything from every book is madness to me
So I tend to rework stuff I allow if I think it needs it. And some stuff needs it badly. I would not allow the SC for instance as I would have to rework 2/3rds of the spells to work like core spells as they are not in the same scale as core.
Sorry If I confused ya , I tend to ramble
I will only disallow stuff if the flavor isn't right (psionics) or just plain stupid like someone wanting to play a halfdragon celestial unicorn were-antalope with monkey grip and a huge two handed sword.
One handed...
As for the splatbooks everyone I play with have had a look and gone "Nah..I'll stick with the PHB thanks".
If someone wants to bring something new to the table they can with the caveat that if it is unbalancing/silly/takes something away from game, then it becomes no more.
I use the Living Greyhawk Open/Closed Lists as a starting point. After all they must have them for a reason, even if I am not aware of it.
I am in a fortunate position that the people I game with have been the same for about thirty years so if we have a problem we all know that it is a problem.
Some sources are broken for some players, while completly viable for others. I have seen arguments coming from you for a certain class which made no sense in my opinion, but I accept that other people have other gaming styles and a different peception.
Also I think its kinda arrogant to tell other people they don't know the rules. Technically this game is all about player perception, which cannot be proven broken or not broken, since perception differs. You like different girls (or even boys), than I do. Does that mean that one girl is uglier than the other girl? No, sorry, its all about perception.
The only scientifcally debatable broken thing in D&D are numbers. Negating all the other circumstances which depend upon the perception of the player. So if some character does on avarage 250 damage more than another, he is broken, but only if it is assumed that 250 more damage is a threshold large enough for brokness.
Perception often cannot be argued. Therefore I do not see much sense in your post, you can't blame other people for disagreeing with you, and thats pretty much what you do.
First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell CompendiumWhy do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
The original post was much longer, and better argued, but I was on a roll, and I cant repeat it. I attempted to answer all responses that may have come in the original post. :(
PS: I am not saying nothing is broken, and I know everything(most theoretical builds) dont even need to be played to know they are broken.
I have usually 2 things to say to people (players) that complain like this to the people that spend 10x more time in preparation of games (DM):
1. My game, my rules. Either play with us or go play Diablo 2 (or WoW).2. Run your own game and lets see how you like every player taking whatever they want from whichever book they want.
I ban the Tome of Battle, Spell Compendium and the Pathfinder Warlock for a very simple reason. I don't own the books and neither do my players. My rule is that there has to be a copy of the rules at the table for the DM and other players to refer to if you want to use something out of a book.
I think that's totally reasonable. I had a DM ban psionics from his game because he hadn't had a chance to read the book yet. Also totally reasonable. He's working his way through it as he can, and I know that as long as I'm patient I'll get to play what I want eventually. I can even accept that someone doesn't think that a particular thing fits well with the flavor of their world. What ticks me off is the 'I don't allow that because it's 'broken' and I will listen to no logic on the subject ever'. That's the kind of attitude that would send me looking for a new DM.
Some sources are broken for some players, while completly viable for others. I have seen arguments coming from you for a certain class which made no sense in my opinion, but I accept that other people have other gaming styles and a different peception.
Also I think its kinda arrogant to tell other people they don't know the rules. Technically this game is all about player perception, which cannot be proven broken or not broken, since perception differs. You like different girls (or even boys), than I do. Does that mean that one girl is uglier than the other girl? No, sorry, its all about perception.
The only scientifcally debatable broken thing in D&D are numbers. Negating all the other circumstances which depend upon the perception of the player. So if some character does on avarage 250 damage more than another, he is broken, but only if it is assumed that 250 more damage is a threshold large enough for brokness.
Perception often cannot be argued. Therefore I do not see much sense in your post, you can't blame other people for disagreeing with you, and thats pretty much what you do.
Your post is very vague, and I never blamed anyone for disagreeing with me. If nobody did I would never learn anything.
I usually ban stuff for world setting. Not much else, although I may get the players together and discuss it if something is 'breaking' my game.
For example :
My longest running recent campaign was a monster campaign. So I banned : Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, Elves, and most half-orcs. The setting was a remote city on a mountain, it had along history of martial conflict, being attacked by orcs, drow, hobgoblins, etc, huge army battles, seiges, etc. So the entire city has mandatory military service. Every citizen has spent at least 5 years in the army and get's their training that way. So even the lowest person in the city has at least one or two class levels, even the lowly beggar in the poor quarter has a couple of levels of fighter. So? I banned Barbarians, they don't fit in the city (there are barbarians outside the city, but all player characters are citizens). I also banned a few spells that would defeat the purpose of the game (which was exploration and finding out what had happened outside the city in the last two centuries of isolation). Spells such as Know the Path, and made it harder to scry (you need something of the person, or something of the place you are scrying).
All of it is though, things banned due to flavor.
As far as modifications to the rules, the group usually all agree a build/rule/etc is a problem. We all agreed that rules that add a lot of complexity get tossed out (IE: Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnium). Splatbooks are usually ok, we might boost a weak class if the concept is good.
I ban the Tome of Battle, Spell Compendium and the Pathfinder Warlock for a very simple reason. I don't own the books and neither do my players. My rule is that there has to be a copy of the rules at the table for the DM and other players to refer to if you want to use something out of a book.
I have a similar preference. THough we generally play at the house of one of the two people in my group that have the most books. But not having the rules on hand is a recipe for disaster. NO ONE remembers it perfectly, and even if you take notes its always necessary to have the original on hand for clarifications. I have an additional criteria, I have to see it ahead of time, so whatever it is I can prepare for it. Or if I think it's 'broken' or doesnt fit my campain, I try to work with the player to try and come up with something that will fit, and will work with the rest of the party. There have been games where I have banned paladins for instance, because I expected and planned for the party to have to 'get their hands dirty' and there was little sense in one party member having to be excluded because of plot points.
Off-topic: I dont get the ToB feels anime or magical argument at all.
Well for one thing, the writers even admit in the book itself that their main source of inspiration from the book was eastern wire-fighting movies, animes and games like Final Fantasy. This isn't something that was casually mentioned in their forums on during an interview, it's right there in the book.
Sorry if I seem a little harsh, but quite frankly I've dealt with alot of TOB fans who just plain can't accept that it's not for everyone.
The reason this is off topic is because the original topic is broken=banned, and saying it is anime=I dont like feel of it so I ban it.
This is just my opinion, but I think it's unbalanced, not simply broken. My reason for this is because I feel that the lower level manouvers are too good for when you get them. I actually think the higher level stuff balances out well - However, it's not at lower levels that the melee classes lacked options and needed help.
I also dislike how the abilities are displayed. They read just like spells, with a set action, duration, special components etc. Things like disarming and sundering for instance, can be done with any character; not nessicerily well, but can be done. Manouvers either can or can't, just like spells, no middle ground. I think that a warrior should be able to at least attempt some of the manouvers in there at-will, even if the attempt has a high chance of failing in order to balance it.
The rogue with improved evasion that chose to fail a reflex save,but still only takes half damage. If that were a ToB power that would clearly be a point against ToB.
Except that helpless rogues do not gain such a benifit, meaning that if the rogue doesn't resist at all he/she doesn't gain the benifits. Evasion is an ability requiring the rogue to at least be active.
The monk is full of supernatural abilities.
I know a fwe people who dislike the class for that specific reason. Have a look whenever someone discusses monk fluff and you'll see at least one or two people will always be unhappy of such a class because it has that feel - rather than a western monk feel which would be unmagical.
The Swordsage is magical to an extent, but they state that up front. The other two classes are just based on natural ability.
While the manouvers of other schools outwith Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are intended to be non-magical, that's not how they come off. How are abilities like spontainiously gaining scent or healing allies by smacking foes non-magical?
Personally, I don't like banning things outright. If a player is excited about it, and they want to play it, I'm usually pretty open. However, there are some builds that are just flagrantly out of hand. Like a PC who takes all of the two-weapon fighting feats, Improved Critical, and wields two vorpal scimitars. I'm sorry, I realize that the rules allow it and all, but the only reason you want to put together a build like that is to demonstrate that you can break the game. Well congratulations! That's not hard to do.
Seriously, if you really have your heart set on playing a two handed fighter that cuts off people's heads, take one vorpal scimitar. Then we'll talk.
|
|
Or if I think it's 'broken' or doesnt fit my campain, I try to work with the player to try and come up with something that will fit, and will work with the rest of the party. There have been games where I have banned paladins for instance, because I expected and planned for the party to have to 'get their hands dirty' and there was little sense in one party member having to be excluded because of plot points.
I think that there are times when classes definately do not work with a campaign idea or setting. For example, I have a player who constantly wants to play a ninja, from Complete Adventurer. This doesn't fit with my view of western Golarian. So I have banned ninja from my campaign because they don't fit. However, I also worked with the player and showed him how he could get what he wanted out of the ninja by running a dual class monk/rogue. In another campaign I ran, inspired by the game Exalted, I only allowed clerics, fighters, monks, rogues, and sorcerers. I also limited PC classes to just the PCs and a few select elite NPCs. So I know exactly what you are saying here.