"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 @$$ creations.
I like the cut of your gm's gib. reminds me of the 3.5 gestalt campaign where i invented mythic before it was a thing. Was nowhere near as good as mythic but still, was definitely madness.
On a completely different tangent, my current DM is the one creating the random chaos. Picture this: a 20th lvl gestalt game. must have a full 10 lvl prestige class picked randomly out of a hat as the last 10 lvls of side 2 (ignoring prereqs). The other 30 lvls must be split as you choose between 3 different classes (1 from the core rulebook, the 2nd from a paizo splatbook, and the last from a 3rd party publisher)...talk about some weird @$$ creations.
That's very strange, but also sounds like a lot of fun. Love to hear how such a crazy concept works out.
(I agree though that the page flipping would be frustrating).
I don't think there are any books that are best not used. There are elements in each book that you need to decide as GM whether you want to include or not.
Personally, the PFSRD kind of cuts down a lot of the work in flipping through books. Hell...I hate looking up stuff even when I know the book and section. The current rules books are often not the friendliest in design. I pretty much now always double-check rules online.
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.
To be fair to homebrewers, I don't see how most classes are that hard to fit in. It's not like each class needs a training academy or their own nation. Inquistors, cavaliers, etc are all pretty generic. I doubt most Homebrewer's share the OP's concern.
Maybe I could see the case for a few culturally specific classes (Druid, Samurai, Ninja, etc.), but even then it's more about changing the name and fluff for the class.
Personally, the PFSRD kind of cuts down a lot of the work in flipping through books. Hell...I hate looking up stuff even when I know the book and section. The current rules books are often not the friendliest in design. I pretty much now always double-check rules online.
Definitely a big fan of SRD. Online player here so that makes me a bit biased, but I don't even know what book half my content is on. I mostly use books for pictures and setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Races are much more of a problem to make fit. Classes is generally a problem if you want to replace arcane magic, say you want psionics to be the dominant paradigm. Still, with all the spell like abilities around, there are other, bigger problems then.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My philosophy as a long time GM is "Never say no when you can say yes." Saying no to a player's idea stifles creativity. I know that all of the rules over so many books with endless options may seem like rules bloat, and it probably is, but that's why the PRD exists. Also, if a player can use those rules so can the GM. I can recall the looks on my player's faces when I revealed the BBG of a recent campaign as Sorcerer/Were-Shark. All of his spells were skewed toward water based type magic and when he cast tsunami on the group, they were woefully unprepared. Which reminds me, the other rule of thumb I go by is, "Saying no to a player also means saying no to yourself."
Anyway. It's your game and I respect your decision to not include certain books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to allow as much as possible as long as characters are interesting and likeable. So I don't outright ban anything, but I will ask how you intend to play your character, and if you want to spam some trick, run it by me first.
But I don't mind others limiting sources (now), but I did once get the argument (for 3.5) "because you don't need more than core", to which I asked "do I really need more than commoner?"
It was a jerk question, but my feelings were hurt... because to me it's not always bloat - it's options and potential.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban the Player's Guide, GM's Guide, and Beastiary 1-3. You don't have a problem with player's playing inappropriate things, if you don't allow players to play characters.
It may be considered harsh, but mark my words, GoSRoP, no matter what books you ban, if you allow player characters you'll only cause trouble for yourself. Cut to the chase and ban em first
"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!"
This is why I make all my characters off the OGC.
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.To be fair to homebrewers, I don't see how most classes are that hard to fit in. It's not like each class needs a training academy or their own nation. Inquistors, cavaliers, etc are all pretty generic. I doubt most Homebrewer's share the OP's concern.
This. A class is just a mechanical structure you use to realize your character concept. You come up with your concept, then choose the class(es), feats, etc that most closely mirror that. The class fluff can be freely ignored; the only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
Banning books is bad. Homebrew worlds that lack so much content that you cannot incorporate a few classes or a feat or two is worse.
As the DM, there is nothing you cannot kill, hence there is nothing a player can make that is too powerful. If your players get enjoyment and have fun making DPR machines, let them. If you don't like running that kind of game, then let someone else run.
I had a bunch of players who went over the top with their optimization and munchkining. I made encounters of equal caliber, and you know what happened? We started a new campaign where everyone sticks to basics. And it's fun.
I allow all paizo, DSP psionics, and a lot of supplemental stuff from 3.5 and our experience is fine. And it's my own home brew world.
All I get from this OP is that you want control of everything.
|
If necessity is the mother of invention, then constraint is the father of creativity. Personally, I don't find having tons of additional sourcebooks to improve the narrative or roleplaying aspects of RPGs much at all. Mechanics can be fun in their own right, but being dependent on them to flesh out your character shows a lack of imagination. Limiting options can encourage players to develop their characters through actual roleplaying rather than through numbers and mechanics. Sometimes less is more.
"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!"
If I am the GM, and I know there will be mid session level up then I tell them in advance so all they have to do is make the actual changes that have been decided in advance. <---possible solution
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am the GM, and I know there will be mid session level up then I tell them in advance so all they have to do is make the actual changes that have been decided in advance. <---possible solution"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!"
This is why I plan my characters ahead of time, makes it easy to level up. Also, most of my players have access to Hero Labs and use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving the original post since there's a significant amount of discussion here, but calling other people "stupid" and "silly" for their gaming choices, and using profanity, is not acceptable on our boards. Please revisit the messageboard rules.
This is why I plan my characters ahead of time, makes it easy to level up. Also, most of my players have access to Hero Labs and use it.If I am the GM, and I know there will be mid session level up then I tell them in advance so all they have to do is make the actual changes that have been decided in advance. <---possible solution"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!"
I plan my characters in advance also. Some people say it is not organic, but I like to know that my feats and other choices will synergize well. it not like people don't take a similar approach in real life to insure success. :)
I let my players use rulebooks whichever they buy. We all have the same goal - to have some pretty awesome fun - so I won't stop them from making characters they want to. We have just one rule that we follow no matter what; we can do whatever we want as long as it doesn't disturbs gameplay of others( + GM is always right lol). That's all I need to satisfy my players - together we build world and storyline. I always ask my players to review adventure that I've created for them, I take their advices and criticism to get better. There is nothing more fun for me than see my fellow gamers enjoying my campaign.
At this point I'm running adventures for many different gamers (most of them I don't even know personally, they just come and go, but I managed to build a good reputation in our little community) and if someone purposely ruins others fun then I just let him go. There is no point of teaching someone how to play with others if he can't follow the basic rule - if one of the players is power gamming while other struggle and try to roleplay then why would I keep him with this group? He is better off with group of power gammers and hack'n'slash type adventures.
Depends on what kind of game i want to run. where i GM at the moment we use Core, APG, UM, UC, other UC and ARG. with everything but often i will restrict lots of stuff and houserule the rest out of shape. Just not this time.
I've got nothing on permanent blacklist. Normally I just whitelist what's automatically available in a campaign (usually "CRB"), and anything else is "talk to me first". If I feel the concept will fit the world and the campaign, it's approved.
|
|
In the game I am running now I'm using Core, APG, and Mythic. I allow stuff from UC, UM, and other sources on a case by case basis. I also backed the new DSP Ultimate Psionics, and might consider that for my next campaign. Not a big fan of bloat, and think the game was still great with just Core, but I try to accommodate players if want another option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am the GM, and I know there will be mid session level up then I tell them in advance so all they have to do is make the actual changes that have been decided in advance. <---possible solution"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!"
I just don't do mid-session level-ups.
Personally, I ban very few things. Even then the things I 'ban' the players have decent chance of talking me into it.
I have been very leery about letting in summoners. Not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with the class. But we have 5-6 players in the group already and few of them are what I would call all that organized. If a guy has trouble handling his PC - I don't want to wait on him figuring out what to do with his PC, eidolon, and/or umpteen summoned infernal shadow whatsits.
I don't allow advanced firearms. No Gatling guns in my fantasy campaigns thank you very much (at least not without a lot of magical enhancements to make it work). I'll allow the early firearms though.
I don't allow evil PC's or PrC's. Some groups it is ok to have that. I don't think my group is mature enough in its role playing to handle evil PC's without disruptive fights, arguments, and hurt feelings.
Drunken master. No. Just no. I know there was a movie that many people found hilarious. Too bad. My suspension of disbelief can only go so far and this is quite a ways beyond that. Sorry you can't take huge amounts of an intoxicating depressant to suddenly be better at things. It just doesn't do that. If all it did was make you able to temporarily ignore damage/pain and fear spells (maybe even mind control), then I could buy into it.
Sometimes a homebrew world will have other restrictions (no elves for instance).
Other than that, I allow anything from the books I own. Will allow from most any other PF source if I can review it first. Rarely do I allow from 3rd party sources. But occasionally if I read through it and trust the player to know what he is doing and not just be an ash hat to the rest of the group.
I have not banned any books, but Summoners are banned, along with the resulting effects of their spell list.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to realize it's not the books that make for imbalanced characters, it's the players that make the overpowered characters. A Core Wizard that hits level 12+ is still stupidly powerful, regardless of what race or feats it has. I don't have any of the books, but I do use the d20pfsrd for material, and basically anything goes that's not 3pp (and even then it's up to the GM's discretion). The only time I ran into absurdly strong characters was when I was running a campaign and the party was approaching the end and everyone was almost at level 20, and even still most of their power was coming from the fact that they were high leveled, not a few gimmicky feats they took. And even the one or two of them that were gimmicky had weaknesses. Sure there was a wood oracle that had a 48STR and vital-striked for 24d8+to-damn-high, but hit him with a few fort or will saves and he's drop pretty quick.
Just tell your players not to play gimmicks/one-trick-ponies and you'll be fine.
You need to realize it's not the books that make for imbalanced characters, it's the players that make the overpowered characters. A Core Wizard that hits level 12+ is still stupidly powerful, regardless of what race or feats it has.
And if the books were better balanced, the players couldn't make overpowered characters ... so, yes, it IS the books.
I've banned the cleric, druid, and wizard more than once. Will probably do so again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only ban a few things, and that's just because I think they are inherently broken, or they remove a vital weakness of a character.
The big ones are the following:
Snap Shot feats - this removes the one weakness of an archer, firing while threatened, it also gives them a method of flanking.
Cluster Shot - Archers are powerful enough as it is, they don't need this feat.
Gunslingers/Guns - I think they're too powerful, and I also don't like guns in my fantasy, except as a rare circumstance.
2-handed Fighter Archetype - this is just poorly designed in my opinion, allowing for WAY too much damage, even without optimization.
Summoners - I don't like the class, I don't think it was well designed, it's spell lists screws with the norm (Wands of Teleport anyone?) and it slows down gameplay.
Litany of Righteousness - Paladin's already demolish evil beings, this just makes it even more unfair. Similar to the 2-handed Fighter Archetype, I think it allows for too much damage.
Instant Enemy - one of the Rangers' only weakness is having to choose the right Favored Enemy, this spell basically makes the weakness irrelevant. Get a wand of it, and the Ranger becomes a true terror that almost can't be stopped.
Other than the above, I allow just about anything from the books. As new books come out, they aren't allowed to be used until I've had a chance to look them over, and until I've had a chance to read any threads for things I've missed.
... Summoners ... it's spell lists screws with the norm (Wands of Teleport anyone?) ...
I don't usually have magic shops with just anything for sale. And if an item is for sale, it will be with the 'standard' class having made it. So there might be a teleport staff made by a wizard.
But if they want a teleport wand made by a summoner, they will have to find a summoner willing to make the wand for them. {They usually won't go to that much effort.}
Personally I ban 3rd party content. Theres too much of me to review it all, and some of it genuinely broken. The campaign I'm playing in now has been ruined by a player who is using 1001 Spells and got access to other casters spell lists and picked up some spell that increases his crit multiplier as long as he keeps confirming. The book in general with its spell options ruined the campaign.
Outside of 3rd party content I don't like gunslingers or guns. I don't care for the touch AC mechanic and don't like the balance to be "well sometimes their gun explodes in their face". And I also ban synthesist summoners only because of the very weird set of rules and exceptions that get applied to them make it very difficult to make sure the rules are being followed correctly. There are also some spells I adjust to reduce their power level such a removing spell casting from Simulcrum, Blood Money capping at 1000gp exchange value, and teleport and divination being blocked by various materials at various thickness (removing the scry and die tactic).
As a whole though, I don't ban any books written Paizo. I merely adjust certain things to make sure they are not abused.
... Summoners ... it's spell lists screws with the norm (Wands of Teleport anyone?) ...I don't usually have magic shops with just anything for sale. And if an item is for sale, it will be with the 'standard' class having made it. So there might be a teleport staff made by a wizard.
But if they want a teleport wand made by a summoner, they will have to find a summoner willing to make the wand for them. {They usually won't go to that much effort.}
Not to mention the summoner would have to have craft wand, which he would not have in my world. If a pc summoner wanted to do it sure, but there isnt going to be such an npc in my game world.
Personally I ban 3rd party content. Theres too much of me to review it all, and some of it genuinely broken. The campaign I'm playing in now has been ruined by a player who is using 1001 Spells and got access to other casters spell lists and picked up some spell that increases his crit multiplier as long as he keeps confirming. The book in general with its spell options ruined the campaign.
Outside of 3rd party content I don't like gunslingers or guns. I don't care for the touch AC mechanic and don't like the balance to be "well sometimes their gun explodes in their face". And I also ban synthesist summoners only because of the very weird set of rules and exceptions that get applied to them make it very difficult to make sure the rules are being followed correctly. There are also some spells I adjust to reduce their power level such a removing spell casting from Simulcrum, Blood Money capping at 1000gp exchange value, and teleport and divination being blocked by various materials at various thickness (removing the scry and die tactic).
As a whole though, I don't ban any books written Paizo. I merely adjust certain things to make sure they are not abused.
I only allow third party material that I own and have read over multiple times. I'm currently mixing Advanced Class Guide playtests with third party playtests to review what I can and will use for my real games.
Not to mention the summoner would have to have craft wand, which he would not have in my world. If a pc summoner wanted to do it sure, but there isnt going to be such an npc in my game world.... Summoners ... it's spell lists screws with the norm (Wands of Teleport anyone?) ...I don't usually have magic shops with just anything for sale. And if an item is for sale, it will be with the 'standard' class having made it. So there might be a teleport staff made by a wizard.
But if they want a teleport wand made by a summoner, they will have to find a summoner willing to make the wand for them. {They usually won't go to that much effort.}
I encourage people to take Crafting feats in my game, and I'm quite willing to work with them so they can get the rules and pricing for items they want down to a fair or reasonable price. If a character wants to take a feat to make some cool personal items, I really don't mind too much, depending on what the item is capable of.
So if a Summoner were to be played in my game, he absolutely could be wielding Wands of Teleport. At 10th level, when the Summoner gains 4th level spells, a Wizard would have ~3 Teleports he could use in a day (more if he chooses to craft a bunch of scrolls). A Sorcerer would have 5 Teleports if he chose Teleport as his 1 spell known.
A Summoner doesn't have to choose Teleport at all, and can make a wand of Teleport (by accepting the +5 increase for not having the spell) and now has 50 Teleports he can use. The wand only costs 15,000 gp to craft, which is dirt cheap for what it is capable of.
Who cares if they go off-target, they can just teleport again if they need to, because they've got a blood wand of it!
But Teleport isn't the only spell on the Summoner list that is wonky, there are others that screw with things too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You need to realize it's not the books that make for imbalanced characters, it's the players that make the overpowered characters. A Core Wizard that hits level 12+ is still stupidly powerful, regardless of what race or feats it has.And if the books were better balanced, the players couldn't make overpowered characters ... so, yes, it IS the books.
I've banned the cleric, druid, and wizard more than once. Will probably do so again.
What is broken is subjective so the books are ok. The problem comes when people with different ideas of broken or what to expect sit at the same table.
Tels: A spell-trigger item cannot be crafted by anyone who lacks the spell. So, a summoner can't make a wand of teleport without taking teleport as a spell known.
|
<Rant>
People.
as DM it is your job to be a diplomat and understand your players some like to optomise some like to roleplay. there are plenty of shades of grey in the middle. as DM you need to be the lenient one in regards to their play style. you may not like to optomise but your friends might blocking this only causes grief with them and leads them to leave your game. After personally playing for 30+ years it has become clear to me that it is best to not be closed mined. so allow books but ban "game breaking" rules in your home games.
</Rant>
When running things I limit players to the CRB and APG.
It's less for me to have to keep track of that way. :p
|
<Rant>
People.
as DM it is your job to be a diplomat and understand your players some like to optomise some like to roleplay. there are plenty of shades of grey in the middle. as DM you need to be the lenient one in regards to their play style. you may not like to optomise but your friends might blocking this only causes grief with them and leads them to leave your game. After personally playing for 30+ years it has become clear to me that it is best to not be closed mined. so allow books but ban "game breaking" rules in your home games.
</Rant>
To flip this on its head players can be diplomatic also. If a GM bans a book find out why. Reasonable GMs might be flexible enough to allow you something here and there. Although, if a GM is firm I respect that decision. As a player I have to decide if I am good with such restrictions or if I should bow out.
<Rant>
People.
as DM it is your job to be a diplomat and understand your players some like to optomise some like to roleplay. there are plenty of shades of grey in the middle. as DM you need to be the lenient one in regards to their play style. you may not like to optomise but your friends might blocking this only causes grief with them and leads them to leave your game. After personally playing for 30+ years it has become clear to me that it is best to not be closed mined. so allow books but ban "game breaking" rules in your home games.
</Rant>
Been there, done that, got the ruined campaign t-shirt. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I am not closed minded. I allow things to players who make an informed request. But when those requests continually result in things shifting the scale of power in significant fashion, even across multiple players, I tend to not listen to the next one. I did not ban the summoner because I read it and disliked it. It's banned because every single player that's created one has gone down the dark side of optimization and power gaming, and in more than one way. And it's not simply "bad players" either. I got weary of dealing with it to be honest, and at the time, the player pool was not shifting that much. When things get banned, it is usually group concensus that leads to it, not my decision alone. There are similar "builds" of other classes that we avoid as well, but the Summoner is the only out-right banned section of Paizo material for us.
Depends on the campaign for me. The Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai are usually off limits due to flavor, but every once in a while I open them up.
The hardest limitation I put on my players is a 3 three book limit that has just kind of migrated from our D&D days. Usually it means Core Rulebook plus another book or two. Though back in 3.5 this one player made a character from Savage Species, the DMG, and a Monster Manual, so I asked him, "Where are you feats coming from?" That character ended up being scrapped.
Although I am willing to make compromises. The same person who made the no feats character also tried to get access to a Ninja Trick by playing a Rogue. Even though I told him no, he still played the Rogue, and after being convinced that he was playing the Rogue to play a Rogue and not for cheese, I let him take the Trick.
I'm okay with most source materials but I tell my players to check with me before they come up with something. I encourage them to plan their builds in advance so it is easier to check things. I try to use RAI as a guide so if you are using a feat combo the designers never thought of I'll think about the way things are supposed to work before I allow it.
When I'm running a game I use a homebrew campaign world so I have to customize things based on that. Anything that is regional has to be re-purposed to a region in my world. If it doesn't fit then you are out of luck, though I am pretty liberal about what can be included. I tend to be of the belief that if one culture can come up with something so can other cultures. The idea that a "ninja" could only come from the orient doesn't make a lot of sense to me when we are not on planet Earth.
I am big on variant races and not only do I allow most things in the ARG but also a variety of homebrew races. Some races I adjust the power level downward and require feats to be spent on some of the racial abilities - you don't get them for free. If you want to play a new race though then we have to get together to decide where your character came from, and if we can't come up with a story then you can't play the character.
Firearms and gunpowder do not exist in my world, so no gunslingers. But if I did allow guns they would just be normal weapons and there wouldn't be a special class to use them. They would be fighters, possibly with an archetype, but based on feats relating to firearms.
I generally take the same stance with cavaliers. You ought to be able to build a mounted warrior using the fighter class, using feats and possibly archetypes, rather than needing a separate cavalier class.
Alchemists I also don't allow, just because that's not the way alchemy works in my game world. An alchemist character in my world would be a wizard or a rogue with the alchemy skill and the brew potion feat.
I actually don't have a problem with summoners, though in my campaign world they are called demonologists and they and rarely good, but you could play a neutral one.
Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic have a lot of variant rules that change your entire game, so I don't use those. Some of them look like fun, but you either use them or you don't for the whole game. I really like the idea of the words of power system but I don't have time to learn a whole new magic system. The more "standard" stuff I generally allow.
If you want to use something from another book that I don't have then generally I will require you to have a copy. The PFSRD is good but it doesn't have the background for various things and I do want to be able to see what the logic behind the mechanic is.
I feel that 3PP is not bad but generally less well edited than Paizo material and though I don't ban it automatically I have a close look at it before I allow any 3PP material.
Peet
I prefer to allow all the hardcovers, and then allow other material on a case by case basis.
I read the splats... they are neat. Some of them have some cool stuff that I really like.
The last I read was the skinwalker splat.... and I marked off a few immediate banhammer items. Prime example, the boarkin skinwalker gets a gore attack for race...fine. Then they can take a rage power that makes that gore attack automatically threaten a crit on the charge... eehhhh looking very troubling.... then I read further to see that when they crit with that gore attack it deals 1d4 con damage.... oooookay, where is my banhammer stamp!
With the core books though, the content is usually pretty balanced, and pretty well thought out. Heck, I can't imagine playing a Monk with just the CRB.
Personally, I ban very few things. Even then the things I 'ban' the players have decent chance of talking me into it.
I have been very leery about letting in summoners. Not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with the class. But we have 5-6 players in the group already and few of them are what I would call all that organized. If a guy has trouble handling his PC - I don't want to wait on him figuring out what to do with his PC, eidolon, and/or umpteen summoned infernal shadow whatsits.
I don't allow evil PC's or PrC's. Some groups it is ok to have that. I don't think my group is mature enough in its role playing to handle evil PC's without disruptive fights, arguments, and hurt feelings.
I completely get what you mean about the Summoner. I often remedy that in larger groups by having them play the Synthesist Archetype if they're dead set on playing a Summoner.
It's a shame your group isn't mature enough, may I suggest a game idea that could put them into the mood?
Make them all the members of an evil knighthood or similar organization that instills the idea of brotherhood. Take the Knights of Takhisis from Dragonlance, they were created after a villain observed how the forces of Good defeated evil by uniting while evil tore itself apart, so he kidnapped children and trained them as his Knights and raised them all as brothers. Few of the Knights of Takhisis would lay a blade against their brother unless given cause to. That way you take away any real reason for them to be snotty villains by having a power structure that can ruthlessly punish violations of code.
I only banned one - the Core rules. That book is full of cheese.
I only banned one - the Core rules. That book is full of cheese.
I'd first recommend banning the dictionary. Any time that's used something has gone horribly wrong.