| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, I currently only let players use the Core Rule Book and Advanced Race Guide. Pretty much full-stop.
Mostly this is because I've looked at the optimization forums here and it's just stupid: I'm sure there's some "crack" one can exploit with a variant dhampir cavalier/magus/alchemist or some silly sh*t to do 550 damage per round at second level. Not having it, though. And then there's the world-building: I just don't feel like making 'room' for all the various splatbook silliness out there. If Witch is a permissible class, then I as a DM feel compelled to work out how Witches fit into this world since there are obviously more than just this one PC one. And I don't feel like doing that.
I even do the same thing when I'm playing--limit myself to the Core Rule Book and *maybe* the Race Book if I'm bored of dwarves or something--just for fairness reasons (can't complain as a DM if I am doing the same thing as a player myself) and also because I dislike Splatbook Bloat: If the rules to adjudicate my character are spread across four books, it strikes me as being, um, sloppy.
Other folks: What books do you absolutely refuse to use, either as a DM or PC?
Should have included: I think the evil trifecta of Advanced Player's Guide/Advanced Class Guide/Ultimate Combat is what I seek to banhammer most savagely.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to be in the "use them all" category. What's nice about pathfinder is it's diversity; that there are a TON of books and interesting features is what makes pathfinder stand out. Otherwise, I'd be playing a simpler system; it's VERY hard to deny that pathfinder is pretty unwieldy rules-wise. If I wanted to limit myself to one book, I'd be playing dungeon world (simple, balanced rules, but a VERY limited amount of stuff).
The only reason I can see for endless banning is if your players are over-exploitive anyway, and those aint exactly the type of folks I want to play with. This smacks of the age old "GM VS players" dichotomy. I want to play with people who are mature enough to "play together" and not to just one-up each-other. (sorry for the rant)
I do understand "setting bans" (IE no gunslingers in my medieval fantasy), but otherwise I'm open to most everything.
GSRB,
Like you I despise bloat! For my own PC's I almost never go outside the core and advanced players guides. When I DM those two volumes are open to everyone...Anything else from any other source (no 3rd party ever)I have absolute veto on. If I approve a spell, feat, or whatever from a splat item I try to do so "in game". A new spell maybe found is an ancient library or whatever.
As a player when I have to sit down beside those 500hp damage/round at 1st level dudes, I let them do their thing and just have fun playing my PC. What makes RPG cool is everyone takes something different from the experience and has fun with it.
|
We allow all Paizo Pathfinder products at our table with GM discretion. So far nothing has needed to be banned, in fact we are faily good at circumventing "problems" more from a creativity standpoint than an over-powered build standpoint.
For instance, for a while we had a nasty habbit of accidentally finding the end of a dungeon, destroying the final encounter at full power and then working backwards. That happens when the cleric LOVES stone shape.
This isn't to say that we don't love our power builds as well... but creativity has been found to be the biggest factor in destroying what should have been tougher encounters. Our gnome illusionist was really good at making enemies think they were trapped inside stone cacoons with holes for stabby weapons to still get in ;-)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a fan of banning things. More options are good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't use seriously depends on what I'm running and who's playing. I change what players can use in each campaign.
I do not like to expose newer or simpler players or storylines with a ton of rules bloat so sometimes I'll only use up to APG.
Sometimes classes represent a level of technology that the setting doesn't go for so I'll ban specific things.
But when I have players that know what their doing and the storylines accept the options I'll allow anything I own.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easier thank banning books is banning players who can't abide by social contracts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is when someone wants to use a weird corner feat or spell in a certain regional guide for a character not in or from that area.
Want the Orc bloodline? At least have some vestige of a RP reason for it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of a book as a whole that gives something that I'd consider broken. If anything's really broken, it's generally in the non hardbacks. Yeah sure, there's a few gems in the Ultimates, but most campaign specific stuff is where your problems are going to lie.
Me personally, I don't ban everything. I'm very much of the "everyone plays with the same toys" opinion, although I don't just straight steal it. I tend to modify whatever ploy the PCs have to a more evil end to make it seem like I'm not just stealing from their playbook.
I myself don't bring something into the game unless I expect the GM to use it on me, and plan around that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I should emphasize that my banning of specific books usually is about 49% anti-optimization, 51% I-don't-want-to-figure-out-how-this-fits-into-the-campaign-world sentiment on my part. I should have added that we don't play on Golarion. Our world is scratchbuilt by me and, as I said, I tend to want everything that gets used to have an 'ecology' behind it--a specific and plausible-sounding way it fits into the world.
The thread title implies that the books have been read, the contents thought over and then the active decision not to use them taken.
With me economics of time and money means that CRB and APG are the books used, purely because I don't own them. Not that what I've heard about UC or UM has endeared me to them.
Cheers
Mark
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what my DM does- allows most of Core. If you want a feat, trait, archetype not in core, then ask and he will allow on a case-by-case basis, more likely if you can give a decent Rp reason for it, and of course it's not too broken.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I should emphasize that my banning of specific books usually is about 49% anti-optimization, 51% I-don't-want-to-figure-out-how-this-fits-into-the-campaign-world sentiment on my part. I should have added that we don't play on Golarion. Our world is scratchbuilt by me and, as I said, I tend to want everything that gets used to have an 'ecology' behind it--a specific and plausible-sounding way it fits into the world.
In terms of fitting it into the world. With the exception of the really specific themes, like the asian stuff, or the gunslinger, what exactly has been introduced to pathfinder (that isnt campaign specific) that doesnt exist conceptually in the core rules?
You say you dont want to figure out how witches work in your world...but your world already has witches. They are just wizards with cat familiars, or infernal sorcerors (assuming the core rules). Witches fit that same world space, with different mechanics that better represents the theme. Dont want to figure out where cavaliers fit? Werent there already paladins and fighters who ride horses? Why is there a need to create a new 'ecology'?
As for me, I dont disallow any books. I allow the core rules, and the base classes from the APG and everything else requires gm approval with a discussion of how it will be used and what the player hopes to acheive in their game. I use a TON of 3rd party material, and various paizo products, as well as a healthy amount of house rules. That said, if a player turns up and starts doing absurd things I reserve the right to line item veto even after the game has started (hence the discussion before hand on how a given option fits into their character and what impact it will have). None of my players try to 'put one over on me' and sneak in something super broken, because I'll just remove it later. And people who continuously try, dont get invited to my game.
Easier than banning books is banning players who can't abide by social contracts.
Quoted due to a typo after the lock. That was driving me crazy.
|
And then there's the world-building: I just don't feel like making 'room' for all the various splatbook silliness out there. If Witch is a permissible class, then I as a DM feel compelled to work out how Witches fit into this world since there are obviously more than just this one PC one. And I don't feel like doing that.
FWIW, in my games, I assume PCs are "special snowflakes" and that most (95%) of NPCs are the NPC class, not PC classes, unless I'm designing a "special snowflake" villain. Thus it's unnecessary for me to figure out where each class fits into my world. Just some food for thought.
As far as what I do or don't allow, I stick to hardcover Pathfinder books, unless I'm doing something special.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easier than banning books is banning players who can't abide by social contracts.Quoted due to a typo after the lock. That was driving me crazy.
Quoted for sage advice.
Life is too short to play with players who don't make your game fun, and life is also too short to limit character options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, I currently only let players use the Core Rule Book and Advanced Race Guide. Pretty much full-stop.
Mostly this is because I've looked at the optimization forums here and it's just stupid: I'm sure there's some "crack" one can exploit with a variant dhampir cavalier/magus/alchemist or some silly sh*t to do 550 damage per round at second level. Not having it, though. And then there's the world-building: I just don't feel like making 'room' for all the various splatbook silliness out there. If Witch is a permissible class, then I as a DM feel compelled to work out how Witches fit into this world since there are obviously more than just this one PC one. And I don't feel like doing that.
I even do the same thing when I'm playing--limit myself to the Core Rule Book and *maybe* the Race Book if I'm bored of dwarves or something--just for fairness reasons (can't complain as a DM if I am doing the same thing as a player myself) and also because I dislike Splatbook Bloat: If the rules to adjudicate my character are spread across four books, it strikes me as being, um, sloppy.
Other folks: What books do you absolutely refuse to use, either as a DM or PC?
I don't do blanket bans on books because it makes no sense to me to do so, and I dont give a book 100% approval until I have read through it. Even then I might say you can use book X except for ____.
As for broken characters I can do that with the CRB alone, and so can most optimizers(ones with good system mastery), so I can't use "broken" as a legit excuse/reason to ban a book.
I also do not bother explaining why or how the core races or classes exist, so I feel no pressure to explain anything knew. Even if I had a homebrew world I would just say the new races are there, but rare. As for classes like the gunslinger I would say they are rare also, or I could just say they are mostly from a certain area, even if it means creating a new area. It would have a general description at first, and I would fill in the details later on.
PS:I am aware that "broken" varies by table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't ban entire books. Makes me look like a lazy GM. If I think a particular rule (spell/feat/race/item/whatever) doesn't work for my game for whatever reason, I'll disallow it or house rule it to make it work.
Should have included: I think the evil trifecta of Advanced Player's Guide/Advanced Class Guide/Ultimate Combat is what I seek to banhammer most savagely.
Advanced Class Guide? The book that's not even out yet and you haven't had a chance to read?
I use everything, pretty much. I like things to have a reason for being, but other than that the more options there are, the more chance a player can create the character they want. I avoid munchkinisation by not playing with munchkins. If you want broken, there's plenty of that in the CRB alone, the additional books tend to fix problems in the CRB rather than introduce more broken stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason to ban a book. There may be reasons to ban certain things IN that book, but no reason to ban an entire book.
This, by the by, applies to the core rulebooks as well. They are in no way immune to scrutiny and game-table alteration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should have included: I think the evil trifecta of Advanced Player's Guide/Advanced Class Guide/Ultimate Combat is what I seek to banhammer most savagely.Advanced Class Guide? The book that's not even out yet and you haven't had a chance to read?
Pfft. You and your facts! I've already banned the 2017 release, whatever it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is when someone wants to use a weird corner feat or spell in a certain regional guide for a character not in or from that area.
Want the Orc bloodline? At least have some vestige of a RP reason for it.
That's where reflavoring comes in handy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do a custom rules document for each campaign with "in" and "out". For the current one, a Kingmaker-style set north of Ustalav, it's CRB plus about half the APG classes and a subset of the APG spells, and nothing else unless it's specifically vetted and allowed. (We also banned a significant number of CRB things.) For the previous one, which was a high-power _Shattered Star_, it was pretty much everything goes. It's a matter of what the GM and player want from each campaign, and I find it works best when this is a joint decision.
(The one thing I can ALWAYS use is more Bestiaries. Just got #4, yum. But this is not to say that all of those critters exist in the gameworld.)
I would rather ban something up front than spend a lot of energy trying to mitigate it, personally. And I share the other poster's view that if I allow PC witches, that means there are witches in the gameworld and people have to know about them to some degree. They are not, mechanically, just wizards with cats. Hexes are Su or Ex, not spell-likes, and this matters in play!
I don't really understand the reluctance to ban. A lot of the time we're banning something because the game will be more fun *for the players* without it. In Kingmaker style games we find that Fly/Overland Flight/Teleport weakens the PCs' connection with the landscape, so we don't have them; I love that as a player because the landscape thing is really important to me. It's not about a GM power play, it's about having rules that support the game you want to play.
All Pazio except tech, guns and anything else that does not fit in my campaign. Not that I dislike the rules for them or some such so much. It is more the flavor of world I am trying to bring to life.
That said I am more then willing to work with any player between games to add things to may their characters work the way they want. This system is about cooperative storytelling IMO and so I try to get my players to understand before the campaign starts what is easy to fit and what is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can break the game with core only and indeed many people will suggest that some of the most imbalanced classes are the core ones.
That being said I think limiting choices in order to keep some degree of sanity in the face of a huge number of character design choices is somewhat viable. I just disagree with the default assumption that additional splatbooks automatically involves gamebreaking power creep. Typically most splatbooks might have some new options that can be exploited but most of the egregious ones merely highlight imbalances in the core mechanics
You can break the game with core only and indeed many people will suggest that some of the most imbalanced classes are the core ones.
That being said I think limiting choices in order to keep some degree of sanity in the face of a huge number of character design choices is somewhat viable. I just disagree with the default assumption that additional splatbooks automatically involves gamebreaking power creep. Typically most splatbooks might have some new options that can be exploited but most of the egregious ones merely highlight imbalances in the core mechanics
Well said. The cleric, druid, and wizard are tier 1 classes (aka broken), right there in the core rulebook. I've banned them before.
Normally i only ban things from books i don't own, and then only until i gain access to that book and can evaluate the content for myself.
For me it's not so much about banning content as deciding how much content from each new book to add to the existing core content.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, personally (does not apply to anyone else unless they agree), bloat and creep are as real as the idea that water fluoridation is an attempt to take over the world. I use every book I own, and I own the combat, magic, race guide, and player guide. As I get more, I'll use them too.
I don't have trouble dealing with any of it, and enjoy having all kinds of options for players and npcs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to use a LOT of books. My personal Pathfinder library, of official and 3PP material is absolutely massive. Pair that with the fact that I use, and will allow PCs to use, old 3.X material after I rebalance it, and the total sum of info I have is ridiculous.
I have several Pathfinder/3.X books and PDFs that I have accumulated over the course of about 10-15 years (Started playing 3.X in middle school, then switched to Pathfinder when it came out.), well over a hundred. That's a LOT of material to allow, but I see no reason to disallow any of it unless it's absolutely stupid unbalanced. I even allow SYNTHESIST SUMMONER PCs, which most people would never dream of allowing.
And as for munchkin players who use all these books to create superstrong PCs, well that just gives me cause to unleash my sadistic creations and utilize absolutely brutal tactics on them that would leave most GMs thinking I am mad. Example, Scarleteen Twinkle, a Sprite 10th level Ninja/ 10th level Assassin sent against 4 level 20 PCs. That was one of the fastest TPKs I have ever seen in my life, honestly. Or perhaps Osruk Tul-Mas, the Scarred Strangler, an Orc Witch(Scarred Witch Doctor)/Barbarian(Pugilist? The unarmed combat archetype,) who specialized in grapples and who managed to tear apart the highly optimized party tank in a 1-on-1 arena match quite easily. Don't be afraid to get sadistic when plotting against powerful PCs, you're a GM! It's your job to create an evil finger-pyramid and play the role of fate, especially punishing the Munchkins. My definition of munchkin is hard to meet though, given that my campaigns usually have 25 point ability buys, max HP/level, max starting gold, and really broad spectrum of books they can use in character creation.
My GM generally allows materials outside of Core on a case by case basis. I've found that is the best way.
Pretty much use them all but I retain the right to tell the players something is overpowered and work with them to make it alright.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't necessarily BAN books, but since I am the only person that owns them all I just choose what books to bring.
There are certainly classes that are not used, summoner and gunslinger and alchemist. This was a combination of people agreeing to not allow them, not just me as GM. The only book that I don't like people using for new character creation is the Advanced Race Guide, player groups of rare demi-humans and monstrous creatures rubs me the wrong way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reason Number 432 why I don't do homebrew campaign settings: not having to think how to fit races/classes because somebody did the hard work for me.
The reason why I do. I don't want 150 bipedal intelligent races. I don't need or want a Mountain Giant, Hill Giant, Swamp, Valley, River, Lake, Ocean, Stone, Frost, Fire, Lava, Jungle, Desert, Plains, Urban, Sewer, Tundra, Polar, Not really high but more of middle sized mountain, Storm, Ice, Laundromat, Mall, Midget, etc. Giants and the same with Trolls, Ogres, Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, Humans, Goblins, etc. I also don't need 150 variants on a dragon/drake/lindworm/jabberwok/wyvern.
I am waiting for the Tiger, Jaguar, Lynx, Bobcat versions of the Griffon and the Snowy Owlbear (Snowy owl/polar bear combo).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What books don't I use?
I always use the APG, but sometimes I don't use UC or UM. The ARG is also more bookkeeping than it's worth.
It's not that there's anything I dislike in any specific book, but I really dislike when a person's character was built from four or five different books, so when we have a rules question regarding one of that character's feats or spells we have to search through three or four books to find the rule in question. And when they level up, it takes forever because their class is in this book but their archetype is in that book but the next feat they want is in the other book and GAAAAHHHH!
Next campaign I run: you can use the CRB and one other Paizo book of your choice. You want to be a Gunslinger? Fine, but pick a core race and make it work with CRB and UC feats only. You want to be a Dhampir? Fine, pick a core class. You want to cast Paragon Surge? Fine, but the new feat you learn can't be Expanded Arcana because that's in the APG.
"It's not that there's anything I dislike in any specific book, but I really dislike when a person's character was built from four or five different books, so when we have a rules question regarding one of that character's feats or spells we have to search through three or four books to find the rule in question. And when they level up, it takes forever because their class is in this book but their archetype is in that book but the next feat they want is in the other book and GAAAAHHHH!"
Then make the player of that frankenstein creation know (or at least have the page numbers of) all the non-core information relating to that pc before approving it. he forgot where the rule for how feat x interacts with spell y when used by race z, then guess what...it works the way the DM wants it to, which is probally not how the player wants it to work.
On a completely different tangent, my current DM is the one creating the random chaos. Picture this: a 20th lvl gestalt game. must have a full 10 lvl prestige class picked randomly out of a hat as the last 10 lvls of side 2 (ignoring prereqs). The other 30 lvls must be split as you choose between 3 different classes (1 from the core rulebook, the 2nd from a paizo splatbook, and the last from a 3rd party publisher)...talk about some weird @$$ creations.