| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they know ahead of time, it's fine.
(Your game: your rules.)
in general it's sometimes too much, but no companions and no summons seems very reasonable. Okay, sometimes summons are handy but this is fine.
Too far is for example if you don't allow multiple-attacks to a high level fighter.
As Macfetus said, as long as they know ahead of time, it's fine.
For the most part they can play whatever class they want, a paladin doesn't have to have a mount, same for druids animal companion. The summoner isn't viable at all but the samurai might be playable if you give him a little something.
It's fine as long as your players know it ahead of time but keep in mind that you have practically banned the summoner and the cavalier and made the druid a lot weaker.
leo1925, I don't see how he made the druid "a lot weaker", every druid can choose to forego the animal companion and an optimization guide even said it was the better option (I don't know enough about PF Druid to judge if this is true).
leo1925, I don't see how he made the druid "a lot weaker", every druid can choose to forego the animal companion and an optimization guide even said it was the better option (I don't know enough about PF Druid to judge if this is true).
It's not only the lack to choose an animal companion (which is the better option for a druid who wants to focus on smashing his enemies) it's the lack of spontaneous conversion of prepared spells to summon nature ally since there isn't any summoning at all.
|
I agree with MacFetus. But here is my feedback.
I think the elimination of summoning spells is too much. If your players like to summon 50 creatures I can understand the problem but then you can limit summons to 1 creature per caster.
In my games I have limited each character to 1 Animal companion/cohort/summon at a time and that works great for me.
I could see how it gets ridiculous if you have a druid who has an animal companion, a cohort, and summons a bunch of animals.
Do your games have particular problems that caused this rule?
Paladins have mount alternatives but cavaliers don't.
Summoners with synthesist archetype merge with their eidolon. It might fit your restrictions.
No summoned creatures affects all spell casters.
If you are going to do this, monsters and NPCs should be barred from it too. This will make some monsters easier.
In my experience, it's not the "pets" that slow down the game, it's players having to stop and look up how their abilities work. I'd make everybody have their own crib sheet with all abilities and spells they are going to use. Give them 10 seconds to decide what they are going to do on the initiative.
Another thing that saves time is using the first game session just to review how CMB/CMD work with grappling and other combat options. You can role play an in-game training session for it if you like.
In my experience, it's not the "pets" that slow down the game, it's players having to stop and look up how their abilities work. I'd make everybody have their own crib sheet with all abilities and spells they are going to use. Give them 10 seconds to decide what they are going to do on the initiative.
Another thing that saves time is using the first game session just to review how CMB/CMD work with grappling and other combat options. You can role play an in-game training session for it if you like.
I like this option. It focuses on teaching everyone the game, and helps speed up play in the long run without limiting options.
I'd consider prepping a 1-2 CR-appropriate encounters to run before play starts and just have a skirmish on a flip-mat. Make sure that the combat is challenging enough not be over i a round or two. Pay attention to things that make the game slow down (taking too long to consider an option, uncertainty about a spell or ability, etc). Then have each player take extra care to brush up on those areas before the actual game starts.
There are lots of tools to use to have the info on hand (spell cards, special sheets for pets/summons, templates etc.)
Repeat every time the characters level, to make sure everyone are updated.
|
|
Not at all, but if characters like companions enough there was a really cool rule that might be of use to you.
[url]http://4th-dimensiongames.com/blog/?tag=cardboard-mode[/url] Essentially give the PC with a companion X Tokens where X is maybe 1 + 1/2 character level. He may only have the companion act by spending a token. When outta tokens, then outta luck.
--------------------------------------------------------
Other non-companion options:
Summoner has Synthesist. Swap Summon Monster X as SLA 3+Cha mod a day for different ability (Perhaps Bard Song variant?).
Druid - Remove Animal Companion as an option, Druids can still take Domains instead. If Summon Nature's Ally can't be subbed for another spell then perhaps allow them to sub in their Domain Spell instead?
Cavalier - Musketeer option. Alternatively a version of Weapon Bond might work. Lvl 1 - Masterwork Weapon. At level 5 as Paladin (Essentially the Cavalier is a Knight or Kensai with an ancestral weapon with hidden functionality).
So, would removing these options be a dick move?
Not at all. As long as you tell the players BEFORE character creation, of course.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
As long as the players know before they make characters, it is ok. Though, IMO you don't need to be quite so heavy handed. If you require the players to have their companions stats handy, then Mounts and Animal Companions shouldn't be a problem.
There was an alternate rule (I know 3.5 had it, but I can't remember what book it was in) for summons that you could summon specific creatures. Perhaps limiting them to a few specific creatures per spell level, that they need to have stats for, would help speed up play.
If you do eliminate summons, I would say give druids spontaneous domain casting instead of Spontaneous Summon Natures Ally.
I agree with the folks above who've said "it's fine, as long as it's clear in advance". Not every campaign needs to have the same options available.
Other options that may help include average damage, using the 4e critical rule (crits = max damage), and timing player turns.
I put people on delay constantly in my games, and when they are ready to take a turn, they can jump back in.
And if you don't have a way to keep track of something; it's gone. "Can I borrow your book, I want to look up the range on this spell" meets an automatic delay from me.
Likewise "What's the AC of a raven?" causes that raven to temporarily disappear, until you are prepared to play.
-------------------------------------------------
And, having experienced a fast-pacing exciting game, PCs don't complain. They agree it's a good rule to have.
I think if you are going to make these changes, you should do 2 things. First of all as others said, tell the players up front long before they make their characters (whether thats individually or in a char creation session).
Second, Present them with some of the concerns expressed here, (no cavaliers or summoners, paladins cant have mounts, wizards cant have familiars, druids cant have a companion and cant spontaneously change spells into summon spells etc). Just so they see some of the implications of the changes.
...
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
I'm going to agree with most everyone else.
Let them know ahead of time and most won't have an issue with it. Consider giving some of the classes something to make up for it. Druid spontaneous domain is a good idea. Summoner synthesist only. Maybe something like a little bit lower powered bonded weapon for the cavelier. etc...Especially if it is a large group like this. Even in a small group summoners (or other caster that uses lots of summons) can really slow things down. A very organized and experienced player will slow it down less, but it will still slow it down some. An inexperienced or unorganized player (sometimes myself) can practically grind things to a halt while looking up stuff. Familiars may not be as big a deal. Most wizards I've seen mostly use them for scouting or utility work not directly in combat so they are not usually doing anything to slow things down. So I might also tell them not to make a combat familiar build.
... I put people on delay constantly in my games, and when they are ready to take a turn, they can jump back in.
And if you don't have a way to keep track of something; it's gone. "Can I borrow your book, I want to look up the range on this spell" meets an automatic delay from me.
Likewise "What's the AC of a raven?" causes that raven to temporarily disappear, until you are prepared to play ...
I've been think of doing something like that. It feels kinda 'jerkish' but I hate having things stop when someone has to look things up.
In my experience, it's not the "pets" that slow down the game, it's players having to stop and look up how their abilities work. I'd make everybody have their own crib sheet with all abilities and spells they are going to use. Give them 10 seconds to decide what they are going to do on the initiative.
I agree with this.
"I hit him with my sword (rolls) and now my wolf bites him (rolls)" doesn't really take much longer than the figher saying "I hit him with my sword (rolls) and now I hit him again with my sword (rolls)"The problem is when it's "now my wolf bites... uh, what's his attack? And how much damage? Doesn't that trigger a trip? Uh... anyone has the book?"
I can see limiting summons, I wouldn't necessary limit it to 1 summon per player, because that can be restricting, but you can say "only 1 summon spell per player". That way they can cast their 1d3 allies, but can't do it 5 times in a row for an entire army.
Other than that see what your players think. If they're ok with forgoing animal companions/summons to speed up play then it's ok, if someone really wanted to play a druid or something, they might feel robbed of that oportunity.
You can also have different rules for different people, as long as you make it about knowledge and not personal.
When you can name a long range, a touch, and a personal spell from a level I choose, then you can play a wizard. Not before.
Likewise, in order to take an AO, you need to explain to me what provokes. Until then, you neither provoke nor take AOs.
I mean LOOK at that book. Expecting someone to know every rule on day one is unreasonable.
Didn't catch if anyone said something similar to what I'm about to...
What I would do is basically exactly what you're proposing, but put a time limit on it. Say, these are the rules until people get to third level. After that you can cast summoning spells (only one at a time) and have a companion. Then at say sixth go ahead and open up the leadership feat for people who don't have companions, and let people cast summoning spells more.
Basically if you don't EVER allow any of these options, your players are very likely to NEVER understand them. If you allow them a little at a time people will have the opportunity to try things out and learn them.
For the most part, I think removing cohorts/companions/familiars is fine as long as you indeed do let players know ahead of time that this is going to be the case. Since all of the core classes affected have alternates to their animal friend class feature, they have options in place and thus are not actually losing anything.
Summoners are a supplementary class and there's no reason for you to feel obligated to use them to begin with. I ban them from my games just because I find them to be a pain in the ass to work with. If you allow cavaliers, you will need to be sure to use the one mountless archetype there is (banner bearer or something) from Ultimate Combat. Also, remember to change the Animal Domain benefit to something else or disallow it.
That said, I would NOT suggest eliminating summoning spells. They are useful things players need to learn how to work with. They're less hassle than full time companions because they're only there in certain circumstances, for a limited period of time. Plus, eliminating summons would eliminate druids' summon nature's ally spontaneous ability which sucks a little bit. And they exist a lot in monster abilities and magic items.
What I would suggest is rather than eliminating them, make sure you have written up/printed out statblocks for common creatures that are summoned. (There is the Summoner App for Android and iPhone that helps with this a great deal.) That way if someone summons a creature, the stats are immediately there with no need to look them up and worry about futzing with anything. You could also restrict the summons lists to a handful of creatures if you wanted, but that takes work for you.
I can see limiting summons, I wouldn't necessary limit it to 1 summon per player, because that can be restricting, but you can say "only 1 summon spell per player". That way they can cast their 1d3 allies, but can't do it 5 times in a row for an entire army.
Note that's not usually feasible for the summon monster like spells, as the casting time is 1 round, and the spell lasts 1 round per level, so at 10th level you've got summoned creatures that stick around for the grand total of 1 minute. If you're spending five rounds casting summoning spells and that's all you're doing, you can't even move. You're making yourself prone to attack to force a concentration check, when there's probably other spells you could be casting to help the party. Not to mention, if you're low level, half the creatures you summon will disappear by the time you finish summoning the last one (with more of your "army" disappearing each round). In other words, it's not really something that can be abused easily.
LOL, took longer than I expected for that to happen.
... What I would suggest is rather than eliminating them, make sure you have written up/printed out statblocks for common creatures that are summoned. (There is the Summoner App for Android and iPhone that helps with this a great deal.) ...
Slight disagreement here.
"...I would make sure THEY have written up/printed out statblocks..."GM has enough garbage to take care of. If they can't be bothered to take the time to write up their own stats then too bad for them. Although it is reasonable for you to double check they did it correctly especially if they have to add templates or modifiers to the summoned creatures.
|
|
I have a new game starting with seven players. Three of them are very experienced with Pathfinder, two have some experience, one has played a little (three sessions with a pregen character), and the last has never played a RPG before.
So, it's going to be a big group and I am considering removing certain character options.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.
2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
I have a group of 5 players. And now I have added two more. Over all I enforce a few house rules.
1: Your character can have 1 Animal Companion, or Bond Mount. I do not allow cohorts for groups after they get 6 people it's just to much to track as a DM. Even with 5 people it's a bit much if every one hase a cohort.
2: You can only ever summon 1 at a time.(Animal, or Monster)
3: You have a time limit for what your going to do. If you don't know what your characters going to do by the times it's your turn. I'll give you a few min, after that I'm skipping your turn until the end. With allot of players it's almost the only way to keep combat moving.
Time's the issue, not the critters themselves, so...
Use a time limit per player (loose, but present) &
Express your concerns and how multiple creatures might be a major hindrance to smooth play.
Those modestly interested will avoid those options, while those strongly interested in summoning/etc. won't be disappointed, and they will get their act together if they know they're acting against the grain (assuming they're nice people).
The veterans might very well be able to go fast w/ multiple creatures.
The newbie won't, at first.
Check some of the posts above on running a faster/tighter game. (Cards/prepped stats/etc.)
You have the opportunity for some truly epic WARS here. Pretty cool.
Go for it. Don't be ashamed.
I have these same restrictions in my game. No character is allowed any "+1"s at all. Even familiars are banned. Yes, that means I've banned Summoners. (Those guys need banning anyways.)
So long as you are up-front about it, and PCs know what character builds to avoid, it works great. It puts the focus back on the PCs (where it belongs) and removes a ton of logistical headaches.
I applaud this route wholeheartedly.
As a player, if a GM did this to me (even before play begins) I would be rather annoyed. Limiting options always sucks, especially if its core options.
However, if he explained to me the logical reasoning behind desiring such a ruling (as you have), I would be much more amiable to the idea.
I have a new game starting with seven players. Three of them are very experienced with Pathfinder, two have some experience, one has played a little (three sessions with a pregen character), and the last has never played a RPG before.
So, it's going to be a big group and I am considering removing certain character options.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.
2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
I think that is something you should ask the group. I would not like it.
What I do for those that like to summon is tell them to have the stats ready before the game.Not knowing the rules is not an excuse not preparing so that you can be efficient.
Its all relative really, I played a master summoner in one of my friend's campaign and I had 3 Branalis (we were all lv 10) and It took me less time to do my stuff that other players in the table, if its not your turn, all you have to do is plan ahead, so when your turn comes, you waste less time.
Go for it. Don't be ashamed.
I have these same restrictions in my game. No character is allowed any "+1"s at all. Even familiars are banned. Yes, that means I've banned Summoners. (Those guys need banning anyways.)
So long as you are up-front about it, and PCs know what character builds to avoid, it works great. It puts the focus back on the PCs (where it belongs) and removes a ton of logistical headaches.
I applaud this route wholeheartedly.
You also knocked out the Witch there.
As for TC, I wouldn't like these restrictions, but I wouldn't hold them against you if I knew about them upfront.
Limiting or eliminating pets and summons can probably help keep turns short at low levels. As the PCs begin to reach higher levels all sorts of time sucking abilities become available to many classes. I'm playing an Alchemist with Fast Bombs in our 14th level Rise of the Runelords game, and even I get tired of my turns. I wish I could just use average damage, but I guess rolling 56d4 per round is my punishment for making such a ridiculous PC. The DM has to roll 20+ saving throws sometimes, but there's plenty of time for him to do that while I do math.
Using average damage is probably the biggest time saving change I've seen. This is especially true for summoned monsters, sneak attacks, animal companions, etc. Our group loves giant handfuls of dice and doesn't mind wasting time, but average damage can speed things up a lot.
It is tough to know how a particular companion or familiar might affect the game. Most familiars get almost completely forgotten, but once in a while one gets turned into an octopus and makes 9 attacks.
|
|
I have a new game starting with seven players. Three of them are very experienced with Pathfinder, two have some experience, one has played a little (three sessions with a pregen character), and the last has never played a RPG before.
So, it's going to be a big group and I am considering removing certain character options.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.
2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
“The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.” Page 9 of the Core Rule Book.
Allot of people forget this little bit of text. This game is yours.
You may change it as you want to in order to “suite your style of play”. It’s expected for you to make changes here and there to make the game your own. All you need to do is let everyone know what you are doing beforehand, as it has been suggested earlier.
For example, If I were inspired by George R R Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire novels, I might restrict the class choices to non magic using classes.
Say barbarian, Cavalier, fighter, rogue, Expert, Aristocrat, and warrior and commoner.
I may decide to gradually add magic into the game, and add an Alchemsit for the “alchemist guild”, a Bard for the “master class” a witch for the Magi, and I may decide to add oracles and sorcerers.
I may also add rangers with the “boon Companion” feat for Worgs.
One problem is managing player expectations. Often players assume, if they have the book they can use its contents; especially a new book.
But if you let people know before hand what you are changing, what is in and out you should be fine
Fore example Core rule book is in APG is in, Ultimate magic, and Ultimate combat is out.
Good luck.
... What I would suggest is rather than eliminating them, make sure you have written up/printed out statblocks for common creatures that are summoned. (There is the Summoner App for Android and iPhone that helps with this a great deal.) ...Slight disagreement here.
"...I would make sure THEY have written up/printed out statblocks..."
GM has enough garbage to take care of. If they can't be bothered to take the time to write up their own stats then too bad for them. Although it is reasonable for you to double check they did it correctly especially if they have to add templates or modifiers to the summoned creatures.
The only reason I suggested he have the statblocks is if he wants to limit the kinds of monsters summoned. For example, he allows summon spells, but only a handful of monsters from the list he will actually allow to be summoned. That way if he has the statblocks, he can say, "Don't look at the book, this is what you have to choose from."
Otherwise I agree with you, actually, normally I expect my players to have the materials they need to cast their spells, not ask me for it.
The greatest appeal of D&D-style play is the Fantasy Shopping for Super Powers. It's created a thriving third party market for Still More Options.
I personally am at the point where I only really want to touch Core Rules and APG, because I'm cranky about having to remember 780 pages of rules printed at ~900 words per page. Most of which need more extensive cross referencing than they get.
So - YES! By all means! Anything to speed up play and keep things moving!
The only reason I suggested he have the statblocks is if he wants to limit the kinds of monsters summoned. For example, he allows summon spells, but only a handful of monsters from the list he will actually allow to be summoned. That way if he has the statblocks, he can say, "Don't look at the book, this is what you have to choose from."...
I didn't think of that. Could be a good idea.
I don't have a problem with having some limitations as a player as long as the limitations are reasonable.
Having to play a one eyed, club foot rogue with delirum tremors because that is all the restrictions allow (I jest, I jest) isn't fun for anyone but reasonable restrictions are okay. Your restrictions for the reasons you stated are reasonable to me and I would be fine with them, if I was playing in your campaign.
I'm playing in two games right now:
Council of Thieves - level 10 Battle Oracle
Kingmaker - level 8 Druid Bear Shaman
The battle oracle is pretty straight forward, he goes up to stuff and beats it up. If it's holding a weapon, he uses his second attack on a full attack to disarm. If he or the fighter is really hurt, he heals.
The druid is more complicated. I have to decide if I'm casting a spell, then I have to direct my bear companion to attack, then if I have any summons out I need to run their actions too.
All in all, the druid still takes almost the same amount of time as the oracle. I know what I'm doing before hand. I have my summoned monsters stats written down (he only summons bears). I roll multiple dice, denoting which ones are for which attacks (1 orange and 2 green, the orange is for bites, the green is claws).
We used a variant initiative system in my druids group. We can have as many as 8 players show up on some nights and we've found it helps people pay attention, and the ones that don't get skipped so they don't waste our time asking whats going on.
We roll initiative as a group. Each person goes whenever they speak up. You don't speak up, you don't go. People pay attention, because if they don't we skip their turn. There is also more table talk going on like "wait a sec, I'm getting out of the way for you to charge and casting a buff". People use more tactics too.
Oh, we've got:
Cavalier with leadership
My druid (who summons)
Summoner
Necromancer (who summons undead)
Fighter
2 Clerics
Oracle
Bard/rogue
Psychic Warrior
(10 players are in the group, but at most 8 show up on any given night)
We can still get through most encounters in about 45 minutes.
I would say it should depend on the players. If all are experienced then summons and mounts should be no problem at all. If they are new players then they probably should be playing fighters or sorcerers. However, as long as the players know about it ahead of time and are ok with it I don't see a problem. I used to ban psychics in my 3.5 game.
I have a new game starting with seven players. Three of them are very experienced with Pathfinder, two have some experience, one has played a little (three sessions with a pregen character), and the last has never played a RPG before.
So, it's going to be a big group and I am considering removing certain character options.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.
2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
bad options, in my book. there is a lot of things that can steal time from gameplay, so instead of trying to micro manage, and limit options, limit time instead. Give each player 15 seconds to execute his round. If he is not done, he didn't finish what he was doing. You can give more time if you like.
This is the single most effective way of speeding up a game. Everyone stays focused, thinks ahead, and uses the time wisely.
If a player can handle summons, companions, etc in the time you have given him, good for him. Many will not be able to handle looking up a spell effect, find out what their skill does, etc.
This rewards the player who is prepared, and punishes the player who is unfocused. If you limit options, you punish the player who is taking the time to learn the game, and do nothing about the rest.
I have a new game starting with seven players. Three of them are very experienced with Pathfinder, two have some experience, one has played a little (three sessions with a pregen character), and the last has never played a RPG before.
So, it's going to be a big group and I am considering removing certain character options.
1) No companions. No animal companions, no mounts (the class feature, not just generic horses and such), no eidolons, and no leadership feat. At the moment I'm considering allowing familiars. While this hits several classes, it does effectively remove the Summoner as a character option.
2) No summons. Once again, Summoners are out, but many other character types will feel this too.
That's really it. Those two things tend to eat up table time more than anything else and have resulted in some players getting far more table time than others, which with a group this large can become a real problem. So, would removing these options be a dick move?
Just let everybody know ahead of time, maybe even point out to anybody playing a class that losses. While I might not be quite as strict, I too am a grest believer in taking away combat pets.
I see absolutly no problem with limiting the game for any reasonable reason as long as the rules are out and open.
I often limit players to only core and AVP classes and races. if they want to play something outside of that they have to accept a flat out no or possibly jump through some hefty hoops. (for example if you want to play a gunslinger in my campaign you have to have an intel of 20+ and an excuse for how you came to know about or develop guns and ammo.)
On a side note there is always the possibility of playing the game a little differently in order to allow what players want.
for example... when characters have cohorts or summons in my games I as the GM control them as NPCs. that way i dont have to keep explaining what an animal companion for example and cant do and if the animal is abused they may reasonably just leave (such as constantly thrown into a reckless damage absorbing roll.)
but the botom line... there is no reason you cant limit options and a lot of reasons why doing so actually leads to a more fun and balanced game.