...
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....
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.
They are mature people just not all mature gamers. Not all of them have alot of experience with role playing games (or played as nothing but a combat simulation with essentially no role play). So they immediately think of 'evil' PC as out of control, insane, psychopath, traitor, kill everything, etc...
They also sometimes have a tendency to take in character actions personally (though they are getting better about this).I am going to start them on "Up From Darkness" in a couple weeks. We'll see how that goes.
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.
We only use Pathfinder books. If Paizo put's it out we use. Contents can be restricted but that's on game by game basis. I as the GM try not to restrict anyone if they can come up with a background supporting their choices. I like my players also to give me a direction for their characters. That way I can put in game stuff that makes sense for the Character. I tend not to ban things but encourage players to use stuff from all the books to fit the game I want to run.
|
For my Homebrew game, it's Core Rulebook only.
For Two other games I play in we use Core Rulebook and APG.
I think that in my next campaign I will probably allow the same books, plus give the players the option of consulting with me for anything else.
If a player has an idea that really only works using a class or a feat or a template from another book I will sit down with them and discuss the concept. If they can convince me that there isn't a good way to do their concept using the core and APG, and that it will fit into the campaign then I will allow it, but I doubt that I would ever give carte blanche access to even everything that Paizo puts out, and I probably won't even bother looking at anything third party.
Aaaaaactually, it's being open playtested right now.
But anyways, I keep all the books available simply because I am not afraid of my players. I'm the DM! I have the ability to make as many bad guys at any difficulty I need to challenge them. Sure, the encounters maybe 3 or even 4 CR above what's considered average, but you gotta know when to play hardball.
I suggest reading some articles on encounter design, that way you can keep your game interesting and challenging while remaining a lot more laissez-faire about player options.
|
Book best not used? Ultimate Combat. Had the three outright no go classes for any of my games (Touchslinger, and 2 Eastern flavor alt classes). But then, I'm really only not using part of that book. And even then, its 2/3 because I despise the class flavor and only 1/3 because its a broken and easily abused mechanic (at least in my eyes).
I encourage my players to goto 3PP, and if they have a 3PP book that I don't have access to via d20pfsrd, then they can copy-pasta me the relevant info in skype and I can rule on it.
Bloat does not affect my side of the table. I rarely use any APG or later classed enemies. I will go and cherry pick spells for bad guys who were built ground-up. More often than not, everything I need to prep and make decisions on for my side of the screen to function I can get from the 4 bestiaries, the GMG, and the NPC Codex.
The players can hunt and cherry pick and min-max break all they want, and it doesn't effect me until the other players start not having as much fun. Then GM rulings take effect, potentially rebuilding stuff. Hell, often enough, the tweaky player will get bored of his abusable build and change classes or characters.
If you as a GM are having a hard time providing an adequate challenge to your PCs, you may want to rethink how you're designing encounters. I often throw gauntlet challenges at my parties to figure out what a baseline encounter should be for them. Right now, my group is a 6/2 mythic party with ~45-50 point buy base stats. In everything but HP survivability, they operate as an APL+3 party. Before hitting tier two, they fought a fight with ~15 enemies in it, and had we went by the CR scale, it would have been an APL+9 fight. The fact that they can walk through reasonable challenges doesn't discourage me and make me want to start banning stuff, but makes me want to figure out how I can develop my talents as a GM to make the game compelling week after week.
I allow EVERYTHING wit hthe expressed caveat i must permit nothing! If it goes bad wrong silly, i nix the previous call. That being said one of my players CONSTANTLY tries to rule out UC, which drives me nuts, my favorite classes/feats are in there! I grumble and complain, and sometimes ask about specific things, then he sometimes allows when he is running, but i concur 100% with the special snowflake guy, that i didnt quote. Every character is special, thats why you are the hero. DC's are around to understand what exactly makes you different, if they cant get it, they think the witch is some strange sorcerer/ess/.
MY current DM also allows 3.5 stuff, and i have been running a warlock that everyone thinks is a wizard... an evil, scarey dark magic, spellbook-less wizard, with no familiar but a silver tongue and a sense of evil about him, despite being CN!
Oh, as an afterthought, if your players are blowing through your encounter, you can always institute the Wave affect. That big baddy dropping quick? Good thing it was only General Targ the Lesser. General Murkon the High and his loyal Platoon of the Blackened Death Fist are arriving all of a sudden.... ((instant cr+4 boost to as many as i think are needed)) then if they get dropped too fast, the Elite Blackened Death Fist Assassins arrive....
Everything is permitted, and anything may be banned.
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.
If you and your group are having fun with that then great. But I think your probably detrimentally limiting yourself and your group by not using the other books.
While the forums may be full of 'super-mega-nova-kaiju-death-builds-from-hell' of one sort or another, most average players are not looking to break the game in a friendly RPG with their buddies. IF your players are not that kind of person then you have 0 worries about letting newer content into the game.
If your players do not metagame/overly min max them more choices should not be problematic and I would foresee 0 issues in using all the material in the other books beyond learning it.
Having played D&D since 1979 it's my opinion that Paizo does a really good job on keeping things really balanced in their supplemental books even when combined with the core rules. I don't see the power creep I did in the old 3.5 splat days.
I have not seen any problems, at all, in the groups I play in and we use all the Paizo hard covers but then again no one I play with is really a min maxer so we never get any of these broken builds in the game to worry about.
In the end though, again, if your groups is having fun with what your using them your fine.
I generally allow Core + APG, the alternate racial stuff from ARG (and most of the "planetouched" races), and the traits from Ultimate Campaign, and gear from Ultimate Equipment. Archetypes from any RPG line book are generally fine.
Anything else not listed above is... less encouraged and has to be run by me, and if it comes from anything, it must come from the RPG line (what is published at the official Pathfinder Reference Document, NOT d20pfsrd). No campaign setting stuff generally (as I do not run in Golarion, for one thing), although I might make some exceptions for some racial stuff if I own it.
This is less of a concern about "bloat" and more about not being overwhelmed by or overwhelming players with options. There's also some stuff in the splats that do not suit my world (though it is minimal). Currently I am playing with a relatively new-to-Pathfinder group who actually, apart from one character being an aasimar inquisitor and someone asking for a feat from the ARG, has explicitly asked to stick with core only because they don't want to deal with learning more stuff. Let me be clear: the players asked to stick to core only, when I was letting them know there were other resources available. Which is both surprising and gloriously if oddly refreshing.
Other folks: What books do you absolutely refuse to use, either as a DM or PC?
I allow all books until someone shows me there's a reason to stop using it. But then, I would either ban or tweak a single feat/ability, you usually don't need to ban the class. And certainly not a book.
Usually the broken rules come from the "Player Companion" splatbooks (especially when it comes to spells), not the core rulebooks. Ban those and keep the core books. The APG, UM, and UC are quite good and your players are really missing out.
In the campaign I'm running (Curse of the Crimson Throne), I allow everything and nothing is unbalanced. But like I said, they're not running with splatbooks.
When I ran 3.5 and started to get overrun by all the options I limited players to the Core three books, the additional Monster Manuals, and one theme book of their choice. I would then use the MIC and SC for myself/loot. Ultimately they had to create Characters, not just a set of stats and a backstory. To use a PF example, a tundra dweller shouldn't have the blue dragon bloodline, a backstory could explain this away but it still wouldn't make much sense. So I should be able to infer a bit about the character just from looking at the character sheet, before reading a backstory.
Rambling statement over now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only allow Core Rulebook, and no prestige classes from it,
I also make my players use a 15 point pathfinder buy.
Hit points are also max at 1st level and then average die plus 1 per level, plus con mod.
I regulate magic items like they are nuclear as well. Nothing is Market Price listed in the book they need to diplomacy to lower that price down. I roll everything out, as core, so there isn't a walmart of items. If they want a specific magic item they have to RP for it to make it happen.
I also ban sundering, unless a monster does dmg to armor and weapons like Green Slime.
There is a myriad of other smaller changes for balancing issues, like the monster ability whirlwind, using scrolls not of your caster level etc.
I do add a lot of controlled content from pathfinder sources, as the adventure goes on, mostly magic items.
I am def a hardcore DM, but my players love it.
I know a lot of people think even the core classes are unbalanced, but with a standard 15 point buy, regulated items, The classes are really balanced in their perspective roles. There are some stronger then others but it is purely situational. As a DM I like to give the opportunity at least once per gaming session for each PC to excel or stand out, which the classes do very well when everyone doesn't have +5 stat and items.
The classes that I have seen in a lot of the expansion material is just way unbalanced, same with a lot of the feats and some of the items. It is just too time consuming to go through it all and nerf 50% and ban another 30%.
I know some may see this as limiting the players or making them never have the feeling of having a +7 weapon of broken dmg.
It really doesn't if anything it forces the players to truly build a PC instead of just a build or a pile of magic items. If they beat a dragon, it wasn't the magic items that did it, it was the party. And when they do find that +2 sword that has history behind it, they cherish it a lot more.
Other folks: What books do you absolutely refuse to use, either as a DM or PC?
For Iron Chef Pathfinder all by David Lebovitz. As good as cheating.
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.
Pretty much use them all, but I reserve the right to downright PK players I think are abusing things.
|
Have to admit, I know how the OP feels.
I've personally never banned anything that Paizo put out, but in a world that is increasingly populated with saurian shamans and vivisectionists and dual-cursed oracles and bloatmages... it's hard for me not to be a tad wistful for the days when all you needed was a core rulebook and a bestiary.
I don't know. It felt...cleaner. More streamlined.
Other folks: What books do you absolutely refuse to use, either as a DM or PC?
Oh I use all of them...never had any of the problems you stated...I mean if you are going to let the opt. boards scare why are you still using the Corebook?
Though I have often thought as a interesting experiement of cutting out the Core rulebook. I mean with Ultimate Equipment I don't even have to bring the book to the game or allow players use it for equipment purposes.
Maybe when the ACG comes out.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I allow core rulebook, and some stuff from the APG. Everything else is case by case. I only bought APG because I found it going cheap.
Most banned would have to be Ultimate Magic.
Whatever happened to using personality to make characters different? Is every rulebook beyond Core saying Core doesn't have enough options? 500 pages of rules and you can't realise your dream character? Please!
I tend to be in the use everything category, but anything past core is GM Discretion. Most of my players tend to be power-gamers, exploiting every loop hole they could in order to do everything everyone else can do better (bunch of spot light addicts)... Until I sit in the GM chair.
So far, I haven't found anything that I need to hit with the banmallet. I just happen to let them know the game isn't about all combat.
"Sure, build the Merman Synthesist Barbarian Monk Rogue that deals 600 DPR at level 4..." I say, watching the sadistic grin spread across their face. "Just be prepared to get your ass handed to you in other areas of the game."
Yup... Lots of skill challenges, diplomacy, and so forth. My players learn right damn quick the value of 'sub-optimal weak non-combat' options. As I have written on my table rules document I've got hung on the wall...
"You want to play a sadistically powerful broken character? Expect me to get as sadistic when dealing with your character."
It's no witch hunt. It'd balancing the game. Or so I tell myself >D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever happened to using personality to make characters different? Is every rulebook beyond Core saying Core doesn't have enough options? 500 pages of rules and you can't realise your dream character? Please!
Out of context this is a hyperbole, the exact same argument could be made for the other side of the argument.
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.
I refuse to allow a lot of 3PP material, and I have harsh house rules when it comes to MIC and Leadership, but that's only after having reviewed the books first and finding out the level of cheese possible.
But that's not even it, the level of cheese possible isn't the problem, the real problem is: How far are your players going to try and push it?
The irony of all this being, that the core contains the most broken classes in the game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.I
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
We play all Paizo books are open, all 3pp books are subject to GM approval.
Drown optimisers in options, give them so much to choose from that they don't have a chance to build the Great Munchkin Lord of all Cheese character.
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.I
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
Presumably though you don't need to read an entire hardcover rulebook to evaluate a player request. You just need to know how the class functions as well as where he is drawing his feats, traits, equipment, etc from.
Presumably though you don't need to read an entire hardcover rulebook to evaluate a player request. You just need to know how the class functions as well as where he is drawing his feats, traits, equipment, etc from.
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.I
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
Depends on what the player is asking for. One feat a fighter can take from one book or one spell is one thing.
An archetype is something else, requiring more reading.
If the player wants to play a Psion its a gigantic investment to read everything on it to be able to decide.
why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
This. Banning every other book certainly isn't going to stop a player with solid system mastery from snapping your campaign in half if he/she wants to.
DMs and players need to maintain a certain level of respect for the game and approach disruptive or overpowered spell/feat/build choices in a mature fashion. It would be a shame to neglect all of the wonderful book paizo has made on the faulty assumption that 'All the stuff outside of the core is more prone to disrupting game balance'.
Also, sometimes it is important to realize balance swings in both directions and having additional options can lead to parties where everyone feels effective and valued in any role they choose.
For instance, I want to create a spellsword character but if I use only the core material, my character will fall behind the rest of the party in effectiveness and that may hamper my enjoyment of the game. However, allowing Ultimate Magic has now enabled me to play the Magus -- a class that embodies my concept perfectly and still keeps up with most classes in the game.
|
why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
This. Banning every other book certainly isn't going to stop a player with solid system mastery from snapping your campaign in half if he/she wants to.
DMs and players need to maintain a certain level of respect for the game and approach disruptive or overpowered spell/feat/build choices in a mature fashion. It would be a shame to neglect all of the wonderful book paizo has made on the faulty assumption that 'All the stuff outside of the core is more prone to disrupting game balance'.
Also, sometimes it is important to realize balance swings in both directions and having additional options can lead to parties where everyone feels effective and valued in any role they choose.
For instance, I want to create a spellsword character but if I use only the core material, my character will fall behind the rest of the party in effectiveness and that may hamper my enjoyment of the game. However, allowing Ultimate Magic has now enabled me to play the Magus -- a class that embodies my concept perfectly and still keeps up with most classes in the game.
I agree. I play in a few rotating games all with different limits on books from Core+APG to everything. I see core-only builds that are just as game straining as ones that use a bunch of books.
I personally only have a few things that have shown as truly problematic....meta-magic rod of stunning and gunslinger after level 12-14. I am sure there are more but a group of friends shouldn't be brow-beating their buddies with horribly asinine builds.I am more likely to limit Races due to the game feel, and I feel that I would set more limitations on the creation process like limiting point buy or rolls rather than banning much outright.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban everything except commoners and simple weapons.
|
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.
Not everybody in my group has a laptop to bring to the gaming sessions. Questions that arise on the fly usually can be dealt with by SRD, but character creation and leveling up really can't if we only have one computer between the five of us.
We don't always plan how long a session is going to last either, so sometimes we level up and discover that there's time for another few encounters. We also like to make leveling up a group activity, as we discuss options for new feats and spells with each other and get a feel for each character's strengths and weaknesses. This can't always be done in advance or on our own time, and it certainly can't be done if we're all fighting over books because the Grippli Eldritch Heritage Vivisectionist Alchemist needs three books just to figure out what he gets this level, the Gnome Qinggong Zen Archer is regretting his choice and wants to find something to multiclass into, and the Dwarf Fighter needs every book because he doesn't qualify for Greater Weapon Focus yet and he wants to find a feat he likes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
Because they are not broken at all. They are simply full spellcasters.
Presumably though you don't need to read an entire hardcover rulebook to evaluate a player request. You just need to know how the class functions as well as where he is drawing his feats, traits, equipment, etc from.
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.I
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
This is why we allow Core and then anything else by special request.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are not broken at all. They are simply full spellcasters.why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
Well, eschewing any baggage or implications the word "broken" may carry when discussing class balance, THOSE THREE are considered the most powerful and versatile classes in the game -- not just consistently on these boards, but on the min/max boards at Brilliant Gameologists as well as Giant in the Playground forums.
The only class outside of the core that even comes close to matching one of the power trio is probably the witch. Even then, that class certainly isn't going to surpass an equally optimized C, D, or W.
If a GM is going to ban a class because it doesn't fit the setting (samurai, ninja, gunslinger, etc.), I understand. But doing so because of "balance" is a poor argument, especially considering the evidence that class optimization/comparison threads have gleaned.
Whatever happened to using personality to make characters different?
But using those rules and options do not interfere in creating a personality for a character. So I don't get where you are going with this...
Is every rulebook beyond Core saying Core doesn't have enough options?
Of course it does not have enough option...for some(probably most people) Never got this whole option=bad.
500 pages of rules and you can't realise your dream character? Please!
Let look at those 500 pages shall we...
Everything beyond page 396 is not player options...so 104 pages are out.
Chapter 7 thru 9 are not options...so that 54 pages out.
so we are down to 342 page.
Chapter 10 is spells which are completely useless for 4 of the elven class and are iffy for the other 11 as not every spell is on everybodys list....so that is 150 pages of iffyness.
Chapter 5 for feats...is pretty much the same as Chapter 10 so that is 28 pages of iffyness.
Chapter 6 for equipment again not all the classes will find these useful option so that is another 26 pages of iffyness.
So lets cut them in 1/2 for another 102 pages of non-options.
So any single character from just the core would have about 240 pages of option...which get cut when the choose a race (10pages goes to about 2) ande class 56 goes to about 3 or 4 pages of options.
So I really don't think the core rulebook is filled with players option as you said...so please stop inflating the numbers.
Besides I consider all books to be GM options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
500 pages of rules?
not even 250 of those 500 pages are useful for players to reference
11 classes does not cover enough concepts. even when we factor Archetypes, Alternate Classes, Race Choices, and the Advanced Class guide. PF doesn't have enough PC options. it has plenty of DM options though, in the guise of highly underpowered, highly overpowered, setting specific, or highly specialized classes or archetypes.
Highly Underpowered Archetype/Class? Geisha, Monk, Rogue, Ninja
Highly Overpowered Archetype/Class? Wizard. Cleric, Druid
Highly Specialized Archetype/Class; Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Cavalier
Highly Setting Specific Archetype/Class; Red Mantis Assassin, Samurai, Aldori Swordlord, Dawnflower Dervish
Effectively, a lot of the options are more tailored to specific groups of NPCs, specific NPC types, or Specific NPC difficulties than they are to standard PC use, like Geishas make Excellent mastermind PCs, but fail in combat, while Red Mantis Assassin Literally Begs for an NPC group, Gunslinger only really works as the manifestation of NPCs from a highly advanced and industrial nation, Monk is merely to make weak but annoying unarmed and naked NPCs, and Dawnflower Dervish serves to make highly mobile fighter NPCs that can still full attack.
Most banned would have to be Ultimate Magic.
Why? It's a good supplement, and if anything within proves "broken" you can ban on a case-by-case basis.
Whatever happened to using personality to make characters different?
Absolutely nothing, but the rules allow you to have personality differences with mechanical repercussions. The more different rules the more variety you can express.
Is every rulebook beyond Core saying Core doesn't have enough options?
Define "enough". Core has certain options. Other books have other options. If I want to make a character that I can realise badly with core, but much better with a few supplements, isn't that an improvement? It's not about "power" but about realising concepts more easily.
500 pages of rules and you can't realise your dream character? Please!
Because the class system is limited in that respect, yes. Some things you can do with core you can do much more easily and mechanically more viably with supplements.
For examples:
1 - I want a character that is part-arcane caster, part divine caster, who can function as magic support, be intelligence-focussed, and yet still be able to heal the party. I could go cleric/wizard/mystic theurge, and by the time this character is half way through their adventuring career, they start to function as I intended, although they will be weak. Or I could just play a witch, and do what I intended from round one of the first game.
2 - I want to "stab people in the face, magically" and not bother buffing everyone. I could go wizard/fighter/eldritch knight or I could play a bard and have a butt-load of class features I don't want, or I could play a magus and have it work off the bat.
3 - I want a skilful, smart, dex-based fighter of the swashbuckler style. I can do it with fighter/duelist, and it kinda works. Or I could fighter (free hand fighter)/monk (master of many styles)/duelist and it works much more effectively, matching an armoured hulk for defence and almost matching him for DPR.
4 - I want to play a monk that works viably; core doesn't have one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard, Cleric and Druid are not broken.
Their spell lists, on the other hand...
==Aelryinth
Banning books without reading them first is always bad. Period, end of sentence.I
Just the opposite- allowing books without having read them is bad.
Even I with quite a bit of disposable income and 1000 wpm reading speed can't possibly buy and read every single book out there.
Straw man. I never said allow all books indiscriminately. Just because I say don't do X, it doesn't mean do Y.
Because they are not broken at all. They are simply full spellcasters.why all these bans when the core rulebook holds the 3 most broken classes in the entire game?
the Wizard? the Cleric? and the Druid?
Well, eschewing any baggage or implications the word "broken" may carry when discussing class balance, THOSE THREE are considered the most powerful and versatile classes in the game -- not just consistently on these boards, but on the min/max boards at Brilliant Gameologists as well as Giant in the Playground forums.
Powerful does not equal broken. The Summoner can be “broken”, esp the synthesist.
And those three classes only reach the heights of their power at higher levels, where not much game play is done. True, there are some spells which if the RAW is stretched beyond RAI are indeed “broken”.
Broken means not working as the devs envisioned. There, the Summoner qualifies, but the Wizard does not, since the Wizard works exactly as he’s supposed to.