| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Howdy folks. I'm just curious what sort of material is banned in your games, either those you play in or DM for. Obviously this is about home games, not PFS stuff.
For my own games, aside from some things disallowed for setting reasons in my homebrew campaign world, a short list is the following:
Alchemist - Vivisectionist Archetype: Banned.
Fighter - Swordlord Archetype: Banned.
Sorcerer - Crossblooded Archetype: Bloodline arcana that grant similar effects do not stack.
Sorcerer: Bloodline powers that modify spells (such as those that add damage per die) apply only to spells cast as a sorcerer.
Summoner - Synthesist Archetype: Banned.
In addition, there are a few other ways that I have toned down problems in my game, For instance:
I have adjusted the way teleportation works. You must know how to get from where you are to where you want to go, just seeing a destination in a patch of random trees isn't sufficient, you must know how to find that place if you were to walk there. (Mostly so 9th level wizards don't put every bounty hunter everywhere out of a job.)
Magical item manufacture requires a rare substance called "quintessence" (which accounts for 50% of their cost) to manufacture. This element is manufactured by a pair of competing guilds and available only in large population centers in limited quantities. This helps to limit crafting a bit without removing it as I can limit the flow of the resource and tone down item inflation. I also allow magical items to be disenchanted, which destroys the item but reclaims half of the quintessence that was used to create the item. This can help to siphon some gold out of the party.
That's about it off the top of my head, I'm curious what other people do in their games to deal with problem areas or nerf problem combinations.
All 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.
I ban third party stuff.
Ditto for third party stuff. There are a few specific 3rd party items I have added in myself, but for the most part, just because someone put it in a PDF and slapped a pathfinder logo on it I'm not letting my players abuse it.
All 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.
Why? may i ask.
and
tiefling and aasimar because i'm sick of them
By default, I ban "Not in Core Rulebook".
All 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.Why? may i ask.
and
tiefling and aasimar because i'm sick of them
The cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.
Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.
|
Well... that escalated quickly...
We ban 3rd party stuff at our table. I think it mostly has to do with an old habit of mine where I was constantly asking my DM about how combinations from 8-9 books would interact.
With the Pathfinder books we've been able to "grow with them" and not have tons of issues.
It could also be that I'm the only caster player at our table with everybody else preferring melee classes and I think scry 'n fry is boring. I prefer building the illusionist gnome sorc with no directly offensive spells who still makes great combat contributions.
With the Pathfinder books we've been able to "grow with them" and not have tons of issues.
I allow pretty much everything from the core hardcovers, but tend to look sideways at PCs built with rules from several splatbooks. A rule of thumb I sometimes use is that if your character pulls rules from more softcovers than your level divided by 4 or 5, it's probably too cheesy.
All 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.Why? may i ask.
and
tiefling and aasimar because i'm sick of themThe cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.
Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.
true but lack of druid cleric and wizard sort of rip out defining elements of DnD
I always pictured it more as a magical thing, their "Memorization" being something they apply via channeling the knowledge within them.
Anyways in PF sorc and oracle really blow druid and wizard out of the water if you know what you're doing with them.
Cleric is easier to break than synthesist so i don't see issue there.
"I'm gonna go ahead and full plate cast, then i'll use an item property to dump my str and use attacks with wis.. OH LOOK THREE LEVELS IN AGENT OF THE GRAVE! I don't have to worry about that pesky con score anymore, good thing i have 18 cha!"
|
I don't use 3pp stuff except on rare occasions, there's already more than enough stuff in the game for players and having to evaluate something new and see if it might be crazy broken with *all* the other options is too much trouble for me.
Other than that the only thing I tend to disallow is Summoners, for a host of reasons. Firstly I dislike their flavour (the only summoner I've liked flavourwise is the one in the PF novel King of Chaos) secondly summoners can be complicated enough that most of my players would probably fall into trap options if they played one and end up with something terrible or something which wasn't actually rules legal, the other players are excellent with optimisation and would create a monstrous character that puts the rest into the shade.
Other than that races are sometimes dependent upon where the campaign is located and such, but that's rarely an issue and I'm very flexible on it.
3pp, and the gunslinger (I will allow with modification if the player desperately wants to play one, basically no touch AC, also in general no guns) no summoner.
My banned list is small.
Antagonize
Leadership
Advanced firearms
Simulacrum
I do have some extensive house-rules however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
true but lack of druid cleric and wizard sort of rip out defining elements of DnDAll 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.Why? may i ask.
and
tiefling and aasimar because i'm sick of themThe cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.
Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.
Not something that concerns me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't ban anything automatically. I allow anything in Pathfinder books that I own (core, ultimate, advanced), and allow other things on a case by case if they're presented to me.
My list is pretty short:
No 3rd party - more for the fact that If I don't own a book I don't let people use it for source since I can't reference it to verify things.
Gunslinger & Firearms - Banned*
Master Summoner - Banned
Ratfolk Swarming Trait- Banned
Earthbreaker - This was made a common martial weapon in UE and it's a bit too good for what it compares to. Besides that it seems that the temptation for making munchkin characters increases exponentially when my players are allowed to have these. I don't understand the corralation there but it is present.
And while I don't ban them I treat item creation very strictly as in you cant just do cash 'n craft. In short you want to make something you have to have the raw materials and facilities available to you.
*I've taken this under advisement at my players request, as the class sits it's just too overpowered but maybe with some tweaks I could see allowing it.
Usually I'll ban Leadership. In most cases I ban the Evil Alignment due to story.
|
I ban 3rd Party material (Though I really love psionics, the balance issues between official and 3rd party published material forces me to draw the line)
Gunslingers (Not for the mechanics, but for the theme... unless I am running my Airship/steampunk campaign, in which case I ban a lot of magic instead)
Cheese combos. I will allow any published official material, but not combos that are made purely for mechanics with a disregard for flavor.
I don't ban outright, but I limit certain races... the player better have a very good reason for me to allow that Kitsune in my primitive jungle barbarian campaign!
In general I am pretty lenient unless a player is clearly trying to finagle in a manner as to be game breaking, in which case I just say no, though I do warn any potential players in advance that I take a conservative approach to most rules. However, I do allow for creative leeway if it is for flavor purposes... after all it is a game about imagining stories, not just playing spreadsheets. I am a benevolent tyrant!
I don't ban anything other than 3rd party. Nothing is really OP IMHO. I have very limited controls on non core races, but only because I'm sick of so many special snowflakes wanting to play drow or some other disruptive race. I ban based entirely on RP reasons, not power concerns. So if we are playing a heroic campaign, no evil characters.
I disallow campaign traits from other APs. I also disallow rich parents.
I strongly discourage characters who aren't capable in combat, I run a pretty tactical game and push the bounds of the CRs of encounters pretty hard. Needless to say it actually makes the party actually willing to RP past stuff instead of having a risky fight.
Gunslinger - It doesn't fit RP wise in most of my games and I dislike having to balance vs a Full BAB ranged attacker that hits Touch AC. No thanks.
The Archtype of Monk that focuses on CM attacks (Trip, Grapple, ect). I banned it the second I saw it. Being focused on grapple is a lose lose situation in my book. Either it works and wrecks the encounter... or it doesn't and the monk is a waste of space. Its like a caster that focuses on Save or Die spells... It really sucks to win or lose an encounter in the first round of combat.
Other than that I ban little. I haven't used 3rd Party but I would be willing to look at it on a case by case basis. I love Summoner but would probably avoid the Master Summoner (Far too much paperwork and upkeep). The same for the archtype that has a zerg of small Eidolons. The Sythesist is fine in my book seeing as I feel it to be a weaker option then a straight Summoner.
Banned
No 3rs party (some minor exceptions might be considered)
No cheesy rip-off name/backstories (i.e. Kinslayers named Blade, etc. Make your OWN character!)
No pre-gens (see above)
No cheese
Not banned, but restricted
Limited guns, setting dependent
Leadership and any "horde" class, unless the party is small and/or lacking a specific role.
Monstrous or Evil characters will be reacted to realistically. Without good RP workarounds and/or excellent Bluff skills, don't expect to get far
Don't expect Golarion-specific classes/deities/customs to apply in my game world, as it is an alternate Golarion at its most familliar points, and truly another world entirely. I'll entertain good ideas, but Golarion characters are as much strangers in my strange land as my characters are in Golarion.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't ban anything.
My rules are:
If it's PFRPG by Paizo you can assume I allow it unless told otherwise.
If it's PFRPG by a 3PP you can assume I allow it unless told otherwise.
If it's 3.5e, I will probably allow it but I'll be paying close attention.
Bottom line for me is... if players are happy, I'm happy. It takes something seriously broken to change that.
I have said "no" to a couple odd combinations, but frankly I'd love for my players to be interested enough that they were reading 3PP material trying to find goodies.
I don't ban much of anything, but I do have a couple notable restrictions I've never really had to put into play/put my foot down over (nobody's asked yet).
-No Summoner unless I can trust you to have a solid grasp of system mastery, and also to take me at my word when I say an ability doesn't work one way. NO, you may NOT Rend more than once a round just because the Rend ability doesn't say you can't for Eidolons.
-No Flying races, usually (I'll allow it depending on the game, I like to run high powered games with Gestalt and such with decent regularity, they're on a case-by-case there). Also none of the races from "Other Races" without specific approval from me. Skinwalker and Android are pretty awesome, go ahead. No, you cannot be a Gargoyle.
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban all players.
I don't ban anything. I houserule things i find overpowered and i might veto an obviously OP character but i'm not going to de-facto take away any options from players.
As for 3rd party. I don't use any, because i don't have any, but if a player had some I would at least look it through before deciding anything.
Only notable exception is banning stuff that doesnt belong into the setting. No firearms in a medieval world for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no standing bans. Everything published by Paizo, SGG (or now RGG), Rite, Dreamscarred, Raging Swan, Green Ronin, Kobold Press, or a particular author I am familiar are allowed without review. Anything else I will need a copy provided to me and will review before allowing it as a player option.
Edit: Oh yea, and WotC 3.5 stuff is also permitted.
Anything outside the core line of books (CRB/APG/UC/UM/UE/ARG) needs to be approved first. Summoners (and especially Synthesists) need to pass a very careful inspection, and Master Summoners aren't generally allowed in parties of 4 or more due to slowing the game down.
The cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.
Sure, but the balance argument doesn't apply to, say, the Ranger. You still have Sorcerers and Oracles around, which are more powerful than half the classes you banned.
Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.
What about Alchemists? They always "know" all of their spells, they just choose to make potions out of a different set of them each day. Nothing objectionable about the flavor there.
Ban isnt the right word (since if someone really wanted to use a banned rule/option/book then I'd allow it) but my preference when playing pathfinder is beginner box only or CRB only if people are really keen for options.
Anything outside the core line of books (CRB/APG/UC/UM/UE/ARG) needs to be approved first. Summoners (and especially Synthesists) need to pass a very careful inspection, and Master Summoners aren't generally allowed in parties of 4 or more due to slowing the game down.
The cleric, druid, and wizard are the most powerful classes in the game, and a big part of that is their ability to change their ability set on a daily basis.Sure, but the balance argument doesn't apply to, say, the Ranger. You still have Sorcerers and Oracles around, which are more powerful than half the classes you banned.
Plus, prep-casting just isn't how I envision magic working. If you know a spell, you KNOW a spell. You don't forget it, and you can't learn a new set overnight.What about Alchemists? They always "know" all of their spells, they just choose to make potions out of a different set of them each day. Nothing objectionable about the flavor there.
Daily changing of abilities = not allowed. I hadn't gotten around to looking closely at the Alchemist ... now I don't need to. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group is pretty good at self policing and thematically sensitive so I just restrict firearms mostly. That being said, they must explain all character concepts without me sighing or facepalming to pass.
Depends on the campaign. I mostly ban things based on them not fitting the campaign theme (ex don't expect guns in a no-gun campaign)...
Psionics are banned on principle that they are on a point-system in a vancian game, but if PF ever puts out a vancian psionic system I'll check it out and may allow it.
Leadership is often banned, but not always.
Gunslingers & Antagonize are banned.
Summoners are discouraged. As are Alchemists, though not for the same reasons.
Anything involving mecha or being a deity is banned.
Swashbucklers will sadly likely be banned for the same reason that Gunslingers are (mechanics, not guns).
Rogues get extra abilities so they don't have to sit in a corner and sob "Ninja, Vivisectionist, Gunslinger, Seeker Sorcerer Dip" over and over again.
Gnomes are usually banned as I have a hard time NOT killing them and I don't want the players or myself to waste a lot of time on them.
-TimD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any bans I have imposed are strictly due to story and setting. If you have some third party thing you want and it fits with a creative story to match, I'll generally allow it as long as it fits the setting.
Bit if you play a horde or Zerg class I better see you rolling dice the entire combat session or we're going to have a nice talk about game pacing and how you're killing it.
Gnomes are usually banned as I have a hard time NOT killing them and I don't want the players or myself to waste a lot of time on them.
Is this because you enjoy killing gnomes or because you find them fragile? If it's the latter that would be an interesting challenge as a player...
I ban 3rd party things, mostly because Paizo doesn't have any say on them. I assume that Paizo "balances" things.
I used to ban Gunslingers, but I am redacting that. I even allow templates.
I am pretty open since I know that I can adapt to the PCs, but even then I tend to do "mirror" matches so people's builds can be their banes.
As for Leadership:
Since my new treasure system focuses on giving an unbound amount of gold the PCs end up wealthier than they would otherwise be if I was still using my old point-system.
The difference in gold isn't massive, but it does allow them to better outfit their cohorts. I factor Cohorts into combat encounter CRs, but the creatures dedicated to the cohorts do not award XP or treasure to the PCs. Instead this stuff goes to the cohorts automatically.
Cohorts are factored into party CR as their level -1 since they have NPC gold, if they only have NPC levels then they are -2. All cohorts are controlled by me since they are technically NPCs, but I tend to have them be loyal if lawful, or their greed keeps them loyal if they are chaotic.
I ban 3rd party things, mostly because Paizo doesn't have any say on them. I assume that Paizo "balances" things.
I used to ban Gunslingers, but I am redacting that. I even allow templates.
I am pretty open since I know that I can adapt to the PCs, but even then I tend to do "mirror" matches so people's builds can be their banes.
You should give 3pp a chance. You can start small (many products can be found for $1) and grow out from there.
It seems fair to point out 2 things about your statement on balance.
1) Paizo released a book that has both the Wizard and the Rouge in it! In the same book! So balance... yea...
2) Many of freelancers which develop products for Paizo are creating content for 3pp. Many of whom have stated that they are more careful about balance in their own products than they are in their submissions to Paizo.
2) Many of freelancers which develop products for Paizo are creating content for 3pp. Many of whom have stated that they are more careful about balance in their own products than they are in their submissions to Paizo.
Really? I dont suppose you have a link or two do you? I'd be really interested to understand why.
All 'preparation' casters are out. Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Alchemists, Magus, Summoners and anyt others I've missed. Rangers have to take either Skirmisher or Trapper for an archetype.
What about that paladin archetype that loses spellcasting?
On topic: I ban anything I can't look up on the prd. Also mythic.
As of right now I have had to tell my players that I'm not allowing Blood of the Moon until I get the chance to read it.
For the most part I don't ban anything, but force my players to deal with how convoluted the game becomes when they want something exotic.
Ninja instead of Rogue requires the player and I to work on a background story and character development that makes sense for the character to actually exist in a non eastern part of the world.
Et cetera.
I actually allow more things than I ban, but for the most part I don't allow 3PP materials unless I have completely gone over it and have completely incorporated it into my game. Example: I allow pretty much all of DSP's psionics, as well as 3.5 psionic materials provided that there isn't a Pathfinder version.
I plan on actually throwing Obsidian dragons and other crazy things at them at some point.
I am pretty open to ideas if they work.
I agree that the GM should ban any material for which he does not have the text available. However for myself, if the material is on the PFSRD I am usually okay with that since I GM with my laptop open and with wifi access.
3pp material does need to be analyzed a bit more carefully but I would not personally ban it out of hand. I understand why a lot of people do though and I support that. I think that 3pp are best used for adventures and monsters rather than rules and character builds.
I agree that the GM should ban abilities that he feels slow the game down too much. Summoners that conjure a lot of critters do this and unless the player is very competent I wouldn't allow that. Leadership also has this effect. If a player has a cohort that cohort should be very easy to play. For this reason I often encourage players to play spontaneous casters, though I don't require it.
I also feel that a GM should place limits on a character if that character is outshining the rest of the party. Not for any rules reason but just to make sure that everyone is having fun and contributing. I expect the players with good system mastery to help the weaker ones come up with ideas.
I ban things that do not fit into my campaign world. So no gunslingers, for example. That seems to be a pretty common one. The problem I have is with the firearms themselves rather than the class, so if someone wanted to build an archer using the gunslinger rules I would be open to the idea. If I did allow guns they would not have all the weird restrictions; they would just be another weapon and practically anyone could use them. Historically when handheld firearms became practical they became the preferred choice for whatever people were being outfitted to fight.
If you have a cool idea though for something I never thought of for my world then I might work it in somehow rather than ban it. My personal campaign world was designed to accommodate a lot of races so most "regular" races are OK, but the "advanced" races like Drow & such I ban for balance reasons. If we started at a higher level I might allow them but I usually start at level 1 and they are a little too powerful early in the game. If someone really wanted to play a race like a Drow I might say that it will cost him his first feat and see if he still wants to go with it.
If you can write a good story around something and roleplay it well I would probably allow it, even if I think it is a bit OP. On the other hand, a player that comes up with a DPS-machine that doesn't have a name will get a cool reception from me. Uniqueness is important for me so if two players have the same idea then whoever has the better story for his character wins the "bid."
Peet
I ban all players.
Well one player is OK. Everyone else has to GM at the same time though.