Is it bad form to ban classes?

[RDM42]

HarbinNick wrote:

thejeff wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

Exactly. Class is still not the whole character...race, gender, equipment, skills, description, backstory, clothing, character, are all part that the DM doesn't ban.

Though honestly, I'd say all of those are things I might shoot down under some circumstances. Some even more rarely than others, of course.

Usually, I'm looking for characters as a whole that will fit the campaign I've got in mind. That could require changing pretty much anything about a character. Most often that'll be a discussion, explaining what doesn't work and is that fundamental to the player's concept or can it change to something else.

Gender's probably the exception, though I know one player I wouldn't let play a woman in any kind of serious game. I've seen him do it and it just doesn't work.

I disagree, I prefer character driven games, unless you are trying for a specific setting, like all pirates, all oriental classes, or all gun users, I think getting too involved in a character creation process is a bad idea. Granted if a person has a clearly disruptive, chaotic stupid character you should ban it...but other wise I say anything goes.

Tell me in what way the character sticking within a broad overall starting theme prevents it being a character driven game?

[thejeff]

HarbinNick wrote:

thejeff wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

Exactly. Class is still not the whole character...race, gender, equipment, skills, description, backstory, clothing, character, are all part that the DM doesn't ban.

Though honestly, I'd say all of those are things I might shoot down under some circumstances. Some even more rarely than others, of course.

Usually, I'm looking for characters as a whole that will fit the campaign I've got in mind. That could require changing pretty much anything about a character. Most often that'll be a discussion, explaining what doesn't work and is that fundamental to the player's concept or can it change to something else.

Gender's probably the exception, though I know one player I wouldn't let play a woman in any kind of serious game. I've seen him do it and it just doesn't work.

I disagree, I prefer character driven games, unless you are trying for a specific setting, like all pirates, all oriental classes, or all gun users, I think getting too involved in a character creation process is a bad idea. Granted if a person has a clearly disruptive, chaotic stupid character you should ban it...but other wise I say anything goes.

While I find that some structure to the character creation process leads to better character driven games. Again, I'm not usually heavy handed here, but I reserve the right. A completely open process often leads to characters with little reason to be in the same part of the world, much less work together.

Suggestions and tweaks on how to fit the setting and the direction or theme of the campaign can help a lot.

I prefer that approach as a player too.

[RDM42]

thejeff wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

thejeff wrote:

HarbinNick wrote:

Exactly. Class is still not the whole character...race, gender, equipment, skills, description, backstory, clothing, character, are all part that the DM doesn't ban.

Though honestly, I'd say all of those are things I might shoot down under some circumstances. Some even more rarely than others, of course.

Usually, I'm looking for characters as a whole that will fit the campaign I've got in mind. That could require changing pretty much anything about a character. Most often that'll be a discussion, explaining what doesn't work and is that fundamental to the player's concept or can it change to something else.

Gender's probably the exception, though I know one player I wouldn't let play a woman in any kind of serious game. I've seen him do it and it just doesn't work.

I disagree, I prefer character driven games, unless you are trying for a specific setting, like all pirates, all oriental classes, or all gun users, I think getting too involved in a character creation process is a bad idea. Granted if a person has a clearly disruptive, chaotic stupid character you should ban it...but other wise I say anything goes.

While I find that some structure to the character creation process leads to better character driven games. Again, I'm not usually heavy handed here, but I reserve the right. A completely open process often leads to characters with little reason to be in the same part of the world, much less work together.

Suggestions and tweaks on how to fit the setting and the direction or theme of the campaign can help a lot.

I prefer that approach as a player too.

When I'm the player I like having a character that also engages the full interest of the gm - because then you are much more likely to get interesting things to interact with thrown your way.

[Bob_Loblaw]

ShadowcatX wrote:

Not so long ago I'd have said the DM is god and it is his way or the high way, blah blah blah. And to a certain extent, that is true.

However, let's also be honest, this is a game. People play games to have fun, will a player having a psionicist (which actually is part of the lore of Golarion, there just aren't any official rules for them yet) really, significantly and negatively impact your enjoyment of the game? Will it significantly and negatively impact your other players' enjoyment of the game? As a DM, I'd rather try and maximize the fun than assert my arbitrary rules over "my" campaign.

However, I wouldn't want to play with someone like you described.

It actually could negatively affect the GM's enjoyment of the game. There is a new set of rules to learn and psionics often interacts with magic differently. Psionic characters, at least in some incarnations, are able to nova more often. They have also been known to slow down play with the calculations for modifying their powers. I know a lot of players who don't want them at the table because they feel it takes away from their enjoyment. Too each their own. I don't care myself but some people actually do.

I don't allow certain alignments or classes at my table. I don't allow certain races either. I have had my fill of trying to fix things by allowing everything. There is such a thing as too much diversity in a game.

[HarbinNick]

I guess what I mean is the DM should set the rules for what is allowed. If he wants everybody to be from the same village or country fine. But he needs to make these rules clear at the beginning. I once knew a DM who had issues...
I want to be a bard...
...bards are terrible. You can't.
I want to be a druid, who is a bear worshiper
...that's stupid...
I want to be a half-orc fighter
...no half-orcs.
I quit.

[Sadurian]

You can ban what you like if you're the GM. I was denied an Archer Fighter build because we were only using Core books. I put forward my arguments but was told 'no' and got with creating the concept using other classes. No great shakes, it wasn't that I was the only one being targeted or anything.

Table flipping....

We use miniatures and I have a large collection of painstakingly painted metal minis, some rare and valuable and others converted. To say nothing of a collection of books that don't react well to being thrown about the place, and cups of drink. Any table-flipping that results in:
a) Personal injury.
b) Damage to books.
c) Staining of clothing from drinks.
d) Broken or damaged minis.

...will likely result in a few not-so diplomatic words and an invitation to move a long way away and stay there. I wouldn't even rule out legal action if the damage was serious and/or expensive.

[Cap. Darling]

I still Think that killing of a cleric with his own planar ally spell is crossing the line. But pehaps i Got it Wrong? He asks for a bebilith and get some hostile Qlippoth, that i assume is a Chernobue. That Can use its horrific apperance in darkness? And it kills him for not speaking the lingu of serpentfolks?

[thejeff]

HarbinNick wrote:

I guess what I mean is the DM should set the rules for what is allowed. If he wants everybody to be from the same village or country fine. But he needs to make these rules clear at the beginning. I once knew a DM who had issues...

I want to be a bard...
...bards are terrible. You can't.
I want to be a druid, who is a bear worshiper
...that's stupid...
I want to be a half-orc fighter
...no half-orcs.
I quit.

Yeah, GMs can be jerks. Of course, if your GM is a jerk, it's likely to show up in the rest of the game as well. Maybe it's a good thing to find out upfront during character creation.

And of course, we could also point to examples of players who ignore the upfront rules and argue at great length with the GM about how they should be allowed an exception.
Which is likely another thing it's good to know up front.

As far as X class or Y race is banned, it's easy enough to do that up front and probably the best idea. It's harder to produce a list of stupid character concepts or ones that just don't fit the campaign.
Which is what I'm far more likely to shoot down or at least require modifications.

[Kolokotroni]

I think the only things that are bad form are:

1. Banning things without a clear reason.(IE something other then I said so). This could be because it doesnt fit the setting, you think it isnt balanced, whatever, but I think its reasonable to give a reason why you dont want something in the game so the player can then go about finding a different way (potentially) to do the thing he is trying to do that does fit. For instance, if you ban the ninja because you dont want the eastern flavor, I wouldnt be doing anyone any favors by playing a rogue, who wears black pajamas, using shurikens and throws alot of smoke bombs. But if my goal was just to use the mechanics, we might be able to reflavor the ninja, to be a rogue with 'panache' or something and keep everyone happier then just the end result of a strict 'ban'.

2. Not presenting this information prior to character creation. Players should know what is or isnt allowed. And while I dont agree with banning all 3pp(there is alot out there I like and I think is completely balanced) but if the gm tells me ahead of time I wont get upset about bans. Its not my style, but its not bad form.

Anyway it sounds like the player is a jerk if he literally flipped a table. Thats special kinds of not acceptable. Sounds to me like someone who did you a favor by dropping from the game.

[ShadowcatX]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

It actually could negatively affect the GM's enjoyment of the game.

Theoretically, yes it could. Ditto the other players. That's why I asked.

[Headfirst]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

The only time I'd consider banning a class is when its core feature doesn't exist in the current campaign world. For example, if your world doesn't have guns, then you sort of have to ban gunslingers. The same goes for psionics.

However, when DMs ban classes for perceived balance reasons, I've found that it's quite often due to their own inexperience, ineptitude, or unwillingness to learn or use all of the game's features.

I've seen DMs ban classes because they rely on certain combat maneuvers simply because they didn't understand how they worked. Their battles were straight up attacks and damage, and someone attempting a disarm or trip put a hiccup in their system. They saw that stuff as an annoying delay of the game instead of a valid action that actually made the battle more interesting.

The same is true for summoners, witches, monks, and all the other classically banned classes. If your DM doesn't understand the rules and restrictions that govern eidolons, of course they're going to think the summoner class is too powerful.

[amethal]

The DM is well within his rights to ban whatever he wants from the campaign, if he thinks it will make for a better game for everybody.

That said, some DMs seem to have irrational dislikes of certain things – if so, you are better off if they are banned up front, rather than being discriminated against later. (For instance, in one 3rd edition game I played the DM had an irrational dislike of the Cleave feat and was always inventing ways to prevent it being used by the Dwarf fighter who had chosen it as his first level bonus feat e.g. “the second goblin has partial cover, so you can’t cleave”)

Personally, I try not to ban anything. In theory, whilst my campaign world has primitive firearms, there are no gunslingers as they don’t fit in with the campaign ethos that “gunpowder is new and unreliable, and guns are crude and clumsy”. However, if a player wanted to play a gunslinger, then I’d let him. He’d need to have a weird backstory to explain his unique status (e.g. he’s from another world), or maybe it would turn out that there had been a group of advanced gunsmiths lurking just off the map all this time, and the character came from there.

The problem I have with stuff being banned because it is “overpowered” is that most of the time it really isn’t any more “overpowered” than a lot of other options that are not being banned.

Lantern Archons, for instance, manage to turn most of the encounters in published adventures into a cakewalk, whilst also slowing things to a crawl as they make loads of attack rolls and force all their opponents to make Will saves. If I banned anything, it would be them.

Also, if a party consists of a gnome fighter with the crossbowman archetype, a duergar paladin, a Halfling monk with a vow of poverty, and a half elf synthesist summoner, the problem is not the summoner!

[Cardinal Chunder]

99% of stuff I have seen banned is because it hasn't been understood correctly and viewed as "overpowered". Also certain GMs have a peculiar mindset that stops them being creative (within the rules) to bring such OP stuff back to earth.

The only thing I have stopped is players running a new *insert thing here* without me as GM reading up and understanding it first, this has lead to players incorrectly using stuff making it seem OP.

I'm fortunate that my group have been gaming together for over thirty years so its no where near as problematic as some. But yes, I have said no to things. It seems that there is a sense of "its in a book I want it!" around. The advance races book, making playable races for instance, got slammed with the ban-hammer PDQ.

As for the OP... I can't really imagine how I would react to someone pulling that with me. It wouldn't end well. You're better off without people like that in your game and in your life. Its short enough without gack like that in it.

[Jamie Charlan]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

Uh... Why are you banning Psionics and ACG, instead of banning core? Psi's a big deal in Vudra (which was clever of Paizo, given that despite the "sci fi" claim people often make, a lot of the powers come more from the Mahabharata and such) and those DSP classes are about as balanced as you can get in Pathfinder. Goblin alchemists are a pretty standard idea to have around, why not half-orcs or 'the only good tree's a mast' elf pirates, there's no reason to be saying no to cavaliers (although you may want to remind them about the sorta-boats issue), Synthesist Summoners can break stuff sure, but even they aren't up to CRB standards of campaign annihilation, they can just do lots of damage in a fight (big whoop).

You really going to take issue with some Beta-version Warblade, a Cryptic/Aegis and an Alchemist in the party while giving a free pass to the cleric and telling the would-be-useful-martial player that NO, he gets to be a rogue or a fighter instead? Maybe he should make sure his Vita's charged, in case there's non-combat requiring skills, abilities or dice rolls so he can't just talk his way out with words in the adventure too.

Rather than telling them you want, say, a quick story on how they got around to the inner sea?

Guess not everyone likes balance and/or awesome.

[thejeff]

Jamie Charlan wrote:

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

Uh... Why are you banning Psionics and ACG, instead of banning core? Psi's a big deal in Vudra (which was clever of Paizo, given that despite the "sci fi" claim people often make, a lot of the powers come more from the Mahabharata and such) and those DSP classes are about as balanced as you can get in Pathfinder. Goblin alchemists are a pretty standard idea to have around, why not half-orcs or 'the only good tree's a mast' elf pirates, there's no reason to be saying no to cavaliers (although you may want to remind them about the sorta-boats issue), Synthesist Summoners can break stuff sure, but even they aren't up to CRB standards of campaign annihilation, they can just do lots of damage in a fight (big whoop).

You really going to take issue with some Beta-version Warblade, a Cryptic/Aegis and an Alchemist in the party while giving a free pass to the cleric and telling the would-be-useful-martial player that NO, he gets to be a rogue or a fighter instead? Maybe he should make sure his Vita's charged, in case there's non-combat requiring skills, abilities or dice rolls so he can't just talk his way out with words in the adventure too.

Rather than telling them you want, say, a quick story on how they got around to the inner sea?

Guess not everyone likes balance and/or awesome.

That's the current playtest "hybrid" classes in the Advanced Class Guide he's talking about, not the base classes in the APG. Other than the Synthesist Summoner, which many do agree is OP.

[SPCDRI]

Playing a straight up Summoner could be stronger than playing a Synthesist. The real problem with Synthesists is that they show up a
martial combatant. This is why people go insane over things like Wild Shape and Polymorph, too. Because don't you get it man, you're the Summoner, you're not supposed to show up the Fighter or Monk or Rogue or Cavalier or something. You're Supposed To (tm) summon things.

The original You're Not Supposed To Do That in Dungeons and Dragons to me seems to be from FrankTheTrollman and it became a well known archetype in its own right: Cleric...ARCHERS. What? The Fighter and The Ranger are the Archers. Clerics aren't Supposed To Do That (tm).
Dat Niche Protection.

[Axebeard]

It's not poor form so long as I agree with your choices.

Seriously, though, I think it's fine. If you want a certain flavor for your campaign, then let your players know before things got started.

Sort of like a Mutants and Masterminds game I ran a while back. My players and I got together and decided on a "feel" for the campaign (we wanted witty one-liners, not grimdark comics), a city for it to take place in, and NPCs that would play prominent roles. You can, of course, involve your players however much you want to in this process. If your game sounds like something they'd want to participate in, then they're welcome to it. If not, then they can wait on your next campaign or find another table.

I guess I'd just make your desired campaign setting known to your players from the outset, and just pitch it in terms of campaign flavor rather than class hate. (Not that you did that, I just feel like it's important to mention.)

[Ashiel]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?

I'm not sure about newer publishings but I have the original Pathfinder campaign setting book and yes, Psionics are part of the lore. There is a pair of pages dedicated to psionics in the world and discussing psionic creatures. Likewise Pathfinder opted to import the Neothelids which are from the Expanded Psionics OGL material because they are an acknowledged part of Golarion.

That says I don't understand why you would put a blanked ban on psionics. Summoners (synthesist or not) I can understand, but I'm a dirty powergamer who has also been playing a psion for 9 levels in my GM's Reign of Winter campaign (and in the one prior to that I was playing a wizard and another of his players was playing a Vitalist which is a psionic class).

It's not a balance issue. They're really well designed. Dreamscarred Press also tends to have a better eye for balance than even Paizo does (possibly because the material is developed by a small collection of hardcore fans who have long had to dispel myths about psionic balance that originate for editions that no longer matter).

If it's a flavor issue, psionics is arguably the most fluff-able system in the game. Unlike bullet-magic (the core magic where you load spells into slots and then fire and forget) psionics adapts well to pretty much any sort of flavor or theme and fits far more tightly with the idea of someone who uses magic by drawing upon energies such as mana or exuding magical powers from within themselves (kind of like sorcerer done right).

Pound for pound their powers tend to be weaker than spells and usually don't enjoy much in the way of free scaling, but they're beautifully flexible which means that if you want to play a long time without resting (IE - without the "15 minute workday") the psion can sandbag in encounters to conserve juice (my 9th level psion is perfectly happy to toss out a 1 PP grease-effect to prevent people from charging my friends, or providing our melee with a weak flanking buddy for 1 PP).

Currently my Psion is in a Reign of Winter game and she is flavored as a particular offshoot of witches who has a bit of a shamanistic / spirit calling bent. She carries around a magic cauldron, turns into animals and eldritch horrors, and channels phantoms who come to aid her and her party. She has a "psicrystal" but in game it's a magical vessel that houses the weakened soul of her mentor that came about as a result of a sort of pseudo-lichdom and she is not tied to my character in this immortal form. This vessal appears to be a polished scrimshaw eyesocket with an opal embedded inside that looks like an eye that rolls around inside and looks about. When it moves it sprouts little bony spider-like legs from the scrimshaw.

Like, I understand banning something for it being super overpowered but I just can't fathom why anyone would ban psionics. It's simpler, smoother, and tends to be more balanced than core magic and lends itself well to far more character concepts and narrative power because of its refluffability.

[Karl Hammarhand]

No GM get's final say on set up. Personal issues aside GM is the architect of their world. They can add or subtract at will.

[David C Smith]

When I am outlining a new campaign, I first try to outline what I am going to allow. For my normal home campaign, I have several restrictions, but I am always forward with the players about them up front (ask them about the great gnome plague).

When I ran the Worlds Largest Dungeon, I allows anything from the core rulebook plus a list of additional books.

There is nothing wrong with restrictions as long as you are up front about them at the beginning.

[Kryptik]

It is within the GM's right to ban anything as long as that limitation is clear with the players. The player in question acted like a petulant child, and should be regarded as no great loss to your (or anyone else's) table.

Game on.

[Lemmy]

I'd say it's in bad form to make extensive rules changes (such as banning stuff) without first discussing it with your players. The GM will always have the final word, but that doesn't mean the game belongs to him and the players are just along for the ride.

Talk to your players, see who cares the most about any house-rules you might want to implement. Hopefully, you will meet a middle ground. And if you don't, you still have the final word, but don't let that make you unwilling to even discuss a compromise.

[Gauthok]

I agree on the general idea of working with the players, as it's what I usually do. In this case, I don't think you can "work with" a petulant man-child who trashes the room when he doesn't get his way.

[Ashiel]

Agreed. Lemmy is right, and so is Gauthok. Part of working it out as a group means being mature enough to not act like a two-year old throwing a tantrum.

[bfobar]

Just to answer the OP:

I have no problem banning classes, and usually cite the reason being that I don't know enough about them to want to deal with them at the table.

I usually just have a ban on all classes / races that are 3PP, and then any campaign specific bans that make sense for the story line. (i.e. no elves in an all dwarf campaign, dangit, or this fantasy world has no guns period in this campaign so no gunslingers.)

I think if you want to ban a synthesist, you can always say that PFS banned them because they were too hard for random GMs to keep track of, so you don't want to deal with it either.

[Louis Lyons]

To add in on the myriad other people who support your decision: There is nothing wrong with banning particular classes that you believe are over-powered, broken, or simply do not fit in with the campaign you are trying to run.

However, I believe it is best to make it clear what the allowed range of races/classes/optional rules are right from the very beginning so that players do not spend a great deal of their time and energy crafting character concepts only to be hurtfully shot down.

As to this particular player, it sounds like you are dealing with an obnoxious and disruptive player who would not be any less obnoxious and disruptive if you allowed him to play the class. And if he indeed throws tantrums, eject him from your group.

But why did you let him in to play with your group in the first place? Is he a friend or relative of one of your friends or other players?

[LazarX]

9toes wrote:

your well within your rights as GM (DM if you like kickin it old school!) for not allowing 3rd party content into your game. As for the players quitting he might have been mistaken about psionics but you were still with your rights to allow him an opportunity to present this so called lore he was babbling on about. Your actions are justifiable and you need not seek an atonement spell.

This is the way you should have written it.

As for the player quitting, show him the door.

Players like this are never appeased by yielding them an inch, they'll go for the yard, and when they have that, they'll reach for the mile.

[LazarX]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

If you are inclusive of all Golarion material, including pre-Pathfinder RPG releases, then sure, psionics is part of the lore.

To be accurate, psionics was MENTIONED in pre-Pathfinder lore, when the material was still being written for 3.5. Keep the following in mind.

1. Lore is subject to be re-written, it has been to make up for glaring errors in lore text such as the infamous "Paladins of Asmodeus" text. Or simply to accomodate the fact that the Golarion of Pathfinder is considerably different from the semi-formed world material written for 3.X.

2. The lore you're referring to was written for 3.5. While it has not been expunged in the Pathfinder version of Golarion, psionics at this point is undefined. When Paizo's work for "Psychic Magic" comes out, the text you're thinking of will most likely be redefined for psychic magic, not 3.X psionics.

3. That said, there is nothing stopping anyone from using Dreamscarred or someone else's system to define it for a home campaign.

[James Jacobs]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?

Psychic magic is part of the lore, yes... but so are dragons and liches and creatures capable of calling down stars from the sky and gods and all the rest. "Part of the lore" is not the same as "A player character option."

You as the GM get to decide what options are available, and that includes deciding what class options are available. For example, in games I run, I don't allow ANY summoners, but I do allow tieflings and aasimars. Other choices vary for the game I want to run.

A player who can't abide by or respect the GM's choices doesn't deserve to play in that GM's game.

[BaronBytes]

I like to present my players with two things at the start of a campaign. A list of rules for character creation
A short pitch of the campaign, describing themes and opposition because you can't ban everything.

"That aquatic druid might sound really interesting but this campaign is gonna be about a zombie invasion it might not be the best place for that character to shine" is the kind of thing I will say. Or "we are going for an Arabian Nights feel, maybe your Samurai isn't a good fit, but here's how your ideas might fit in with the theme." My goal here is to start a discussion, maybe the samurai will end up in the game, but the discussion need to happen.

If a player insists and start trying to badger me, that is the point where the creation rules are handy, being explicit on why you don't allow some things is a good thing here. If he continues and start flipping tables, no game is better than a bad game.

[williamoak]

Oh, also: NEVER be afraid of re-fluffing. I do "ban" certain classes, but it's only for mechanical reasons (summoners because complicated, gunslingers because doesnt fit most settings). I might allow summoners one day, once I've had a chance to play & properly understand their limits (I have seen & heard of seemingly endless misunderstandings on how they function).

On the other hand, if someone want to be "psionic", I have no problem saying something like "ok, play a refluffed wizard or sorcerer who'se power comes from the MIND". Or having hammers re-fluffed as "dwarven battle bread". Or having a samurai refluffed as a Jannisary (based on baronbytes arabian night example).

But yeah, your problem seems to be more player related...

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

... is it bad that even the creative director bans summoners?

[TriOmegaZero]

Remember, the creative director is not the lead designer.

[Matt Thomason]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

... is it bad that even the creative director bans summoners?

Exactly the opposite, really.

It shows that even Paizo recognize that not everything they make is something everyone wants to use, and that individual tables should make the game their own and tailor it to their own requirements rather than trying to conform to some kind of standard just because Paizo (or anyone else) wrote it.

The alternative would be a (purely hypothetical) company coming along with their new game and announcing it's 100% perfect for everyone, and we all have to follow it to the letter because there's no chance of them getting anything wrong or unsuitable for certain players (who are just players, and clones of each other designed for no reason other than to buy this game, obviously).

I know which of those two companies I'd rather support. Nobody, but nobody knows what my group will enjoy playing more than my group does.

[Ashiel]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

... is it bad that even the creative director bans summoners?

Depends. He might ban them because he's not into the flavor of them or something. I banned them for a while because I didn't like the mechanics of them. I later re-allowed them as a choice after modifying their chassis (spell list, spell progression, etc).

Honestly though, so many players in my current group have fallen in love with psionics that I haven't had to deal with things like summoners. They have been enamored with the types of characters that they can make (one player is playing a succubus-blooded tiefling and using psionics to represent her magical powers from it, for example).

[LazarX]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

... is it bad that even the creative director bans summoners?

Exactly the opposite, really.

It shows that even Paizo recognize that not everything they make is something everyone wants to use, and that individual tables should make the game their own and tailor it to their own requirements rather than trying to conform to some kind of standard just because Paizo (or anyone else) wrote it.

The alternative would be a (purely hypothetical) company coming along with their new game and announcing it's 100% perfect for everyone, and we all have to follow it to the letter because there's no chance of them getting anything wrong or unsuitable for certain players (who are just players, and clones of each other designed for no reason other than to buy this game, obviously).

I know which of those two companies I'd rather support. Nobody, but nobody knows what my group will enjoy playing more than my group does.

What it shows is that Paizo's designers aren't of a common piece as far as their personal gaming aesthetics. Despite the fact that he is the Creative Director, not everything that went into the final product is the way Jacobs would have wanted it. His statement should not be taken beyond the fact that he reserves himself the right to run his PRIVATE home games the way he sees fit, even if it's going to have some variance. In a way the fact he does so, and says he does so in a public venue, I see it as his tacit encouragement of GM's to run their worlds AS THEY SEE FIT.

[James Jacobs]

Ashiel wrote:

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

... is it bad that even the creative director bans summoners?

Depends. He might ban them because he's not into the flavor of them or something. I banned them for a while because I didn't like the mechanics of them. I later re-allowed them as a choice after modifying their chassis (spell list, spell progression, etc).

Honestly though, so many players in my current group have fallen in love with psionics that I haven't had to deal with things like summoners. They have been enamored with the types of characters that they can make (one player is playing a succubus-blooded tiefling and using psionics to represent her magical powers from it, for example).

In fact, my primary reason to not allow them in my games is EXACTLY because of flavor concerns. I don't like how the eidolon lets players make up monsters. The second reason is that summoners slow the game down because they add so many more pieces to the combat; the summoner's turn ends up being way too long. The fact that I feel like they have easy potential to be overpowered is 3rd on that list.

But yes. The strength of the game is that you can adjust it to be the game YOU want. Even in Pazio, we have different preferences for game play.

[PathlessBeth]

No, it is not bad form to ban classes.
Classes I occasionally disallow include:

Spoiler:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

[TimD]

@ OP - banning classes is fine, especially if all of the other players are on board and you let everyone know ahead of time what your house rules are.

David C Smith wrote:

(ask them about the great gnome plague).

This sounds like a product &/or service I would approve of. Do you perhaps have a newsletter to which I can subscribe? :)

-TimD

[Te'Shen]

TimD wrote:

David C Smith wrote:

(ask them about the great gnome plague).

This sounds like a product &/or service I would approve of. Do you perhaps have a newsletter to which I can subscribe? :)

So you'd like to pay for large scale gnomish depopulation? I knew they weren't as popular as some races... but that's kind of harsh. ;)

[deuxhero]

Banning classes is alright, especially third party (although it's far more balanced than almost everything Paizo has put out themselves, especially by internal devs.) and "beta" classes, but banning Synthesist "because it is overpowered" even though it's dramatically less powerful than plain-old summoner (he has double the actions) all while leaving Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Oracle and Witch alone, all of whom outclass it by a very huge margin is a bit absurd.

"Because it is badly written" would be perfectly fine, but "overpowered" is absurd.

[MarcFrey]

williamoak wrote:

Interesting sidenote: I will CONSIDER (no guarantee) 3pp stuff IF the players buys me the book (other GMs I know have the same policy). I've yet to hear of anybody taking up the offer.

Actually, I've bought my DM UM and UC simply for having been such a great DM all year long and constantly hosting our group :)

(Funny thing: Once I gave him the books his first question was "What's in there that you want... =.="

[bfobar]

As far as summoners go, I kind of wish that the Eidolons were made with advancement templates so that everybody knew what the damn thing did. Basically,

"I have an Eidolon!"
"What kind?"
"An 8th level Angel type!"
"OK let me look that up in the APG...ah. OK, its abilities make sense to me now."

While it sounds cool, keeping track of your players trying to keep track of their evolutions is a giant headache.

[David C Smith]

deuxhero wrote:

Banning classes is alright, especially third party (although it's far more balanced than almost everything Paizo has put out themselves, especially by internal devs.) and "beta" classes, but banning Synthesist "because it is overpowered" even though it's dramatically less powerful than plain-old summoner (he has double the actions) all while leaving Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Oracle and Witch alone, all of whom outclass it by a very huge margin is a bit absurd.

"Because it is badly written" would be perfectly fine, but "overpowered" is absurd.

I had kinda "requested" that players not play gnomes because of the actions of one player. I know that is harsh but it is a long (and funny) story. From then on it became known as the Great Gnome Plague, a running joke in my campaigns, even those that I had gnomes in. We turned a restriction into something unique and a background that added character to our games. Just depends on how you look at it. :)

[lemeres]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?

So you are banning broken, weird mana points, and overpowered?

Quite honestly, I can fully understand why you might ban those classes, even if they were a 'part of lore'. They all have confusing system that you are not familiar with (well, ACG is better, but they are still something like playing gestalt). If you are not comfortable with the mechanics yourself, then how are you going to judge whether your encounters are balanced or not? I mean, knowing that the wizard is out of 4th level spells, but still has plenty of buffs and battlefield control spells of lower levels means you can still throw things at the party, but nothing too intense.

But what do you throw at a psion with 7 points? I know points are involved, but is that a lot? Heck if I know. And probably, as the psion levels, they could make those points go further with new options (I've glanced at some of the material....charges? Blade skills? WHat? it seemed to use the same resources for better things). So 7 points at one level might mean something different later on, but only having level 1-3 spells means just about the same thing at any level when it comes to what they can handle. Plus, one psion class I've glanced at, the Aegis, is in fact just about the same as a watered down synthesist (supernatural armor that gives you stat boosts at level 1 and crazy things like extra arms or special senses). I'll admit, this rant might just be my deal (I've only just started looking at psionics), but it can still be a reasonable concern over all with things like summoners.

Anyway, back to the main question: Can you ban 'lore'? Sure. I mean, necromancers are lore, but do you allow players to make them in a good aligned campaign alongside a paladin? No. You can make certain key decisions on what is and isn't available in your game. While you are right, it can be bad form banning things left and right (some people never allow non-core races for example, and even crack down on you if you go half-orc; considering how 'ragtag' parties usually are, it would practically be unusual to never see a noncore race, and it can seriously restrict creativity), but the things you are banning, as I said in the beginning, are completely reasonable.

Particularly when it comes to 3rd party and 3.5 content. Pathfinder was not balanced for it, and the fact that this player wants to bring in CoDzilla shows how he wants to upturn the entire system he agreed to play with you just to be powerful. As GM, game balance is part of your responsibilities, so banning is a tool to keep a handle on that so you do not have to jump through hoops to make encounters that challenges a minmaxer without making the rest of the party have to roll new characters.

Of course, if everyone is playing OP characters, then things can go smoothly. If he negotiates with you, and helps you to study up on psionics, you all might play a psionic game someday. He could make a necromancer is evil (or at least morally gray) campaign everyone decides to play together. He could make a CoDzilla in 3.5 campaign. But this all happens through communication and working together as you try to find a place and time for their character ideas. Not through tantrums. These games are about making stories...together *cue sappy music, roll end credits*

[DM Under The Bridge]

taldanrebel2187 wrote:

Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"

I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?

Swing the ban-hammer whatever way you wish.

Just don't crush fun.

[Owly]

Bad form? No. Just let everyone know how you're setting up your game. Handle disappointment with tact and respect, and you'll have satisfied (if not happy) players.

[HarbinNick]

An example of a game I ran (one shot but still fun)
10 million years BC
Classes allowed were
Druid
Barbarian
Ranger
-And yes, there was only one race too

[taldanrebel2187]

Cap. Darling wrote:

I still Think that killing of a cleric with his own planar ally spell is crossing the line. But pehaps i Got it Wrong? He asks for a bebilith and get some hostile Qlippoth, that i assume is a Chernobue. That Can use its horrific apperance in darkness? And it kills him for not speaking the lingu of serpentfolks?

I disagree.

Planar Ally on SRD:

Planar Ally wrote:

However, none of these necessarily bind the outsider to the caster’s needs, and a wise spellcaster augments the summoning with additional encouragement, usually in the form of gifts or bargains.

He had no gifts, no bargaining and lacked the ability to even speak with it. It's chaotic evil, and has no desire but to consume flesh and spread poison, then eat some more. Guess how that 'negotiation' is going to end?

Binding Outsiders wrote:

Clerics and oracles find the job of summoning and binding outsiders much easier than arcane spellcasters do. A cleric calls upon her deity to send a like-minded creature by way of one of the planar ally spells. That outsider is in the service of the god, and its desires almost always align with the cleric’s goals, or at least run in parallel with them."

Sure, and summoning it !== binding it, as per planar ally. He tries to summon a demon. Fails his knowledge role. Guess what? You don't know what you're trying to summon. You know a name, great. The problem is the player failed his Knowledge roll:

"You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.... For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more."

He got a 4 total. But it gets worse *WAY WORSE* as per Planar Ally...

"(though you might get a different creature anyway)"

Per Pathfinder wiki - Groetus:

"Some believe that he may not even know or care that he has any followers, knowing that if his goals are achieved, they will be destroyed along with everything else"

The way I read this is that the Planar Ally is not really an ally at all. It is not a summoned creature. It's an outsider that you essentially bribe to do something for you.

If the planar ally is not "necessarily bound the outsider to the caster’s needs" and is Chaotic Evil, then absolutely nothing stops him from killing the caster or his allies. A CE Outsider may be highly annoyed that it's been sent somewhere, or if he doesn't speak the local lingo might just see a free lunch.

The issue here is that the player's PC was not thinking clearly, and that the player himself was being a major league douchebag. If you're 8 INT and cast an extraplanar spell without speaking any other languages or knowing about the Planes... I mean hey. Stuff's going to go wrong and quick. CE outsiders aren't just bouncers you call, they're evil as hell.

It's made worse by the fact that the character's chosen deity doesn't care about his own followers and is basically totally nihilistic and insane.

Again my 2 copper. Are there any RAW things to say that a summoned CE outsider, if not bribed/communicated with would not kill the summoner?

[Abraham spalding]

My current campaign is rather limited:

Races:
Ratfolk, dwarf, elf, catfolk, grippli, human, android, orc, half orc, half elf and halfing (in this campaign half dwarf actually)

Classes:
Oracle, witch, wizard, magus, fighter, barbarian, cavalier, (spell less) ranger, gunslinger, rogue, alchemist

While normally I am all about whatever the player wants in this particular campaign magic is a studied thing and those that get magic without study are weird and usually pay a price for it (hence oracles).

A GM should always work with his players but that certainly doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your game for their desires. Sometimes it just comes down to, "Look I appreciate what you want to play but it simply won't fit in this campaign. If you want to play something else great, but otherwise how about we hook back up later after this campaign is done?"