|
There are three good reasons to ban classes IMO:
1. it upsets the groups concept of the game (ie-gunslingers in a more traditional group). The players will tell the GM when this is the case.
2. The GM does not want to have to incorporate it (for whatever reasons) into his or her game world and lore. I have had GMs ban core classes for this reason, at the game didnt really suffer too much. Key here is communicating this info to the players up front.
3. A particular build or class gives the GM so much heartache and upset that he(and as a consequence the players) cannot enjoy the game. Whether this is due to his perception that a class is broken, the fact the player is insisting on playing a character that is diametrically opposed to the game theme (paladin in an evil game, deep dwarf in a skull and shackles game, etc), or the GM just has a beef against that class/build. This is where the rule of Mama's and GMs apply - if they ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
I am happy to report that most GMs in my area are proponents of the rule of "Yes, but-" as compared to the rule of "NO", so hopefully banning happening in games only for a good and fair reason.
Psionics definitely falls into the category #2. I know of several GMs that are not fans of psionics(myself included), and all of them are very old school, so we remember the 1st ed version that made a mockery of otherwise epic campaigns.
I suggest that whoever really wants psionics supply the GM with the rulebooks and offer to help walk him through it. It may help the GM get more comfortable with another whole rule system. This is what I suggested to the player in my game who wanted to create a psionic character, which he is still not doing since I have yet to see a copy of the rulebook. :)
You're well within your rights as a GM to ban classes... our GM only allowed CRB classes and gave us his reasons which we agreed with 90%... at first I thought It would be restrictive BUT it actually helped because we had a smaller pool of options..
As a compromise he allows ALL Paizo published class related feats, spells & equipment etc
If he is physically displaying annoyance at rolling a 1 (it usually gets rounds of laughter and facepalming round our table) he needs help.. it COULD get worse, meaning he COULD take his annoyance out physically on yourself or another player..
'... He's also a bit of an alcoholic (OOC)...' he's an alcoholic you say.. he needs help but must ADMIT the PROBLEM himself first..
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. . .
This is probably just me being sensitive here, but I don't feel what you are calling confusing is actually so. It kind of obfuscates things. The worst part of the summoner is a poorly built eidolon. There is a chart. And there are evolution points. And there are abilities that can only be taken at certain levels, just like some other class abilities like talents and mysteries and deeds. Its not difficult. It just takes time. If a player puts in the legwork, its fine. The real problem is somebody who doesn't do that or builds the eidolon wrong on purpose.
And psionics? Not difficult at all. As much as I dislike the analogy, if you've played computer or video games in recent times, power points are easy to pick up and use, because you've already been using them. It's very similar. But Clerics with access to every spell on their list can be monstrously versatile given a day to change things up. Are you familiar with all the spells they have access to? I'm not. Did he ban the cleric? No. So I don't feel it's ignorance of something.
Not allowing a summoner because it slows play, this I can see. But, in my mind, that would mean cutting out Summon Monster X and Summon Nature's Ally X and Leadership and animal companions and (improved) familiars. But he didn't do that. He's dropping a summoner archetype that gets weaker because it gives up action economy. I don't know why, and he didn't give a reason (unless I've missed it or already forgotten it, which is possible).
When I play a summoner (wizard conjurer), I print out the monster stat blocks I'll be using. It saves time. I also know what I will generally be using the monsters for. Lots of hp? Meat shield and trap trigger. Flight? Dropping alchemist fire. I try to be organized as a player, and it's even more important as a storyteller to be prepared. Or great at improvisation. Or both. You mention challenging the party, but that's as much of an art to me as CRs don't really cover things. A party of four 5th level fighters and a party of four 5th level clerics are Supposed to be up to equal CR challenges. Hmm.
Lets over simplify. Psions play like sorcerers. Wilders play like angry, less versatile sorcerers. Soulknives play like a weapon specialized fighter. Psychic warriors play like fighters that trade some feats for some buff spells. You are informed. Start with those and see what happens.
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. . .
Seven power points is akin to a single 4th level slot, seven 1st level slots, two 2nds and a 1st, or maybe a 3rd and a 1st. Psionics don't get free scaling. However, lower level powers/spells can still be useful. You pay for everything. For example, the charm person equivalent can be extended as part of the power for more points or become charm monster with enough points, but you have to have both the caster/manifester level and the power point to spend. And the amount of points you spend to make it charm monster works out to the same amount of power a wizard has to throw down to charm monster. Psionics gives nothing for free.
Mechanically, I started looking at the psionics from Dreamscarred Press, but the SRD really isn't laid out very well with them, and I have to jump around a bit when concepts get referenced that I haven't read yet. I think if I had a player who wanted to play them, I'd be willing to take a look if they bought a pdf for me to read. I'm certain the actual book flows much better than the SRD.
I understand that feeling. Might be cool to allow psionics, but I'll need the book first, the SRD just does not flow for reading.
I've outright banned gunslingers and summoners in the game I'm running. Gunslingers because my homebrew setting doesn't yet have firearm technology, and summoners because I don't care for the mechanics of the class. I also discourage druids for setting reasons, but haven't outright banned them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know why gunslingers and revolvers were introduced, but I think they are really inappropriate for the setting as it stood. Maybe it would be appropriate in an Eberron-style world, but Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name walking around next to Conan the Barbarian and Sir Galahad doesn't work for me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the DM may ban whatever elements do not work for that DM as long as the DM is up front about the bans. I personally have banned paladins, anti--paladins and inquisitors. I have no need for endless philosophical debates about is x a reason to fall or not. I also got tired of explaining that paladins and inquisitors canot just decide to arrest people and being special to thier church does not in any way mean the authorities will automatically trust them...
It is all a matter of taste.
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
No Neanderthal? Were they OP?
Neanderthal was the race.
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?
No, it is not wrong. Not to many things are bad wrong fun, but I do explain to my players why, if I do ever ban anything. They might still not agree, but since we are all adults I don't see the harm in having a discussion with them. I don't ban too many things anyway though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see anyone else post this in the thread so thought I'd provide a link to an excellent article from Steve Winters.
Banning or saying no to certain propositions can be just as important as saying yes to a player's suggestion. Balancing those can be tricky though and as other posters have pointed out its important for a DM who is banning or limiting options to explain why upfront and then also listen and heed the players inputs or take on those ground rules.
For the record, I now do just simply ban the summoner class and while I'm fine with gunslingers they'll never come across advanced firearms.
Cheers for the link Wyrd. Yes, I also believe that saying no is crucial to defining a setting and game. Many are against gunslingers, because as much as paizo just had to throw in six-gun gunfighters into the fantasy setting (urrgh), many consider it off colour.
I actually like the summoner, but I don't consider them balanced (look at my OP noodle-on, he is like an uber-pokemon) so they aren't in.
I work a simple 3 terms GM model:
1: You want what?... OK.
2: That sounds interesting, But...
3: NO Means NO.
They function in that exact Hierarchy as well.
I try not to say no.
But when I do; It is non-negotiable.
I do not need to explain my reasons beyond "I do not want that in this particular game/campaign/setting."
The banned item may be available in a different game I run; just not this one.
I think asking the question as "What Classes Do You Ban?" is not necessarily the best way of going about it, as opposed to asking "What Do You Include?". If anything, the second approach doesn't have the air of confrontation in it. As a GM, I'd much rather be put in the position of saying "Yes".
This. I have a list of things that are automatically allowed in my games, and anything else is "ask so we can talk about it".
Of course it's bad form to ban anything from players, you as a DM exist only for the express purpose of allowing us players to have fun...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think asking the question as "What Classes Do You Ban?" is not necessarily the best way of going about it, as opposed to asking "What Do You Include?". If anything, the second approach doesn't have the air of confrontation in it. As a GM, I'd much rather be put in the position of saying "Yes".This. I have a list of things that are automatically allowed in my games, and anything else is "ask so we can talk about it".
Recently the majority of games I run are themed campaigns, so I prepare a list of classes/archetypes and races that are fitting and allowed and work from there. I also print out a hand out of any campaign restrictions, house rules and the like before character creation begins, along with a campaign setting synopsis so that players have plenty of opportunity to create something they like and will also fit in the game.
One thing I find important as well is to vet/audit every character with the player to make sure it is workable and will remain so down the line while discussing their plans. It is also a great time to clarify any rules interpretations in regards to preventing or allowing some of the more liberal builds and ideas you see posted on the forums. I think it is only fair to let a player know in advance whether or not something might work, rather than have them waste time/feats/etc to build a character concept, only to be told after the fact that it doesn't work the way they planned.
Ultimately it is most important, to me at least, to make sure the players know in advance of any major changes or limitations/bans, so that they get every opportunity to plan for the game.
I think asking the question as "What Classes Do You Ban?" is not necessarily the best way of going about it, as opposed to asking "What Do You Include?". If anything, the second approach doesn't have the air of confrontation in it. As a GM, I'd much rather be put in the position of saying "Yes".This. I have a list of things that are automatically allowed in my games, and anything else is "ask so we can talk about it".Recently the majority of games I run are themed campaigns, so I prepare a list of classes/archetypes and races that are fitting and allowed and work from there. I also print out a hand out of any campaign restrictions, house rules and the like before character creation begins, along with a campaign setting synopsis so that players have plenty of opportunity to create something they like and will also fit in the game.
One thing I find important as well is to vet/audit every character with the player to make sure it is workable and will remain so down the line while discussing their plans. It is also a great time to clarify any rules interpretations in regards to preventing or allowing some of the more liberal builds and ideas you see posted on the forums. I think it is only fair to let a player know in advance whether or not something might work, rather than have them waste time/feats/etc to build a character concept, only to be told after the fact that it doesn't work the way they planned.
Ultimately it is most important, to me at least, to make sure the players know in advance of any major changes or limitations/bans, so that they get every opportunity to plan for the game.
Currently my only issue is the list of Approved Classes is much much longer than the outright banned one. It is often easier to say "everything except Summoners and Gunslingers are approved."
Currently my only issue is the list of Approved Classes is much much longer than the outright banned one. It is often easier to say "everything except Summoners and Gunslingers are approved."This is true, but I limit certain archetypes as well, depending on setting, so I just make a full list.
hey if it works; it works. And I can see why you do it how you do.
For me it is just easier to list off the the "verboten" than write up a complete list of everything that is approved. And considering the amount of work I put in to other aspects of the game anything that makes for less work...
My personal opinion on psionics is that it just doesn't fit into the setting that well in many cases. I would likely ban it in every single scenario. I am 99.9% certain that psionics are banned in Society games. So many players are used to playing them, that I think basically nobody remembers they are 3rd party.
No. I can't forget. It was core in D&D. In Pathfinder, I can't read three different threads without someone mentioning that it's .
And it's one of those things that is easily refluffable. (I know. Not a real word, but you knew what I meant.) Crystal becomes jade. Or dreamcatchers. It's mind magic. It's chi/chakras. It's dark blessings from extraplanar creatures with mutable forms. Or just about anything that would fit in a re-theme-ing. (Again. Not a word...)
There's a Half-Orc. He channels the spirits of his ancestors. He's more durability in battle than most. Spellcasters watch what he does and are kind of confused, believing his ranting about spirits granting favor to be ridiculous, but it works. He has a small stone carving of wolf's head, the symbol of his tribe. His grandfather's spirit inhabits it, and sometimes speaks, exhorting him to greater feats of bravery in the name of his tribe. He believes it has fallen to him to kill the black dragon known as Ghrithnahar, who almost wiped out his tribe three generations back. (Egoist X with a psicrystal or Psychic warrior x with a psicrystal).
. . . I try not to say no.
But when I do; It is non-negotiable.
I do not need to explain my reasons beyond "I do not want that in this particular game/campaign/setting."
The banned item may be available in a different game I run; just not this one.
You try not to say no... which I agree is good, because it's an interactive event. It's collaborative storytelling. It's lets play pretend and make something awesome. But if I say no as a storyteller, I will also give my reasoning. I have a reason. The players will understand my reason. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm just exercising control. I've had storytellers that have done that. It was not fun.
Yes. A dm has full control over his game. He has the right to ban anything at anytime and the ability to say "It doesn't matter what the dice say. You fail." ...and that makes me think of the adage "What one can do and what one should do are often different things."
Gaming is a social event. It's about people getting together to have fun. I have been at tables where everyone stopped having fun except for the DMs. Because of times like those, I have two questions I ask myself when running a game. By limiting/changing X... Will the game be more fun? Will the limit/change help the story in some way? If I can't say yes to both, I don't bother.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal opinion on psionics is that it just doesn't fit into the setting that well in many cases. I would likely ban it in every single scenario. I am 99.9% certain that psionics are banned in Society games. So many players are used to playing them, that I think basically nobody remembers they are 3rd party.No. I can't forget. It was core in D&D. In Pathfinder, I can't read three different threads without someone mentioning that it's .
And it's one of those things that is easily refluffable. (I know. Not a real word, but you knew what I meant.) Crystal becomes jade. Or dreamcatchers. It's mind magic. It's chi/chakras. It's dark blessings from extraplanar creatures with mutable forms. Or just about anything that would fit in a re-theme-ing. (Again. Not a word...)
There's a Half-Orc. He channels the spirits of his ancestors. He's more durability in battle than most. Spellcasters watch what he does and are kind of confused, believing his ranting about spirits granting favor to be ridiculous, but it works. He has a small stone carving of wolf's head, the symbol of his tribe. His grandfather's spirit inhabits it, and sometimes speaks, exhorting him to greater feats of bravery in the name of his tribe. He believes it has fallen to him to kill the black dragon known as Ghrithnahar, who almost wiped out his tribe three generations back. (Egoist X with a psicrystal or Psychic warrior x with a psicrystal).
You try not to say no... which I agree is good, because it's an interactive event. It's collaborative storytelling. It's lets play pretend and make something awesome. But if I say no as a storyteller, I will also give my reasoning. I have a reason. The.... . . I try not to say no.
But when I do; It is non-negotiable.
I do not need to explain my reasons beyond "I do not want that in this particular game/campaign/setting."
The banned item may be available in a different game I run; just not this one.
Any time someone says I "Should" always give a reason I quote the GMG.
The important thing is to stand behind your rulings, and when certain things break the rules -for good reason- don't feel you have to reveal world secrets just because the rules lawyer demands answers.
I am permissive enough on so many other things that when I do say no it stands. I am not obligated to explain it in any way.
I often will say "I do not want/need that in this game/campaign/setting.It may be a difference in location or perhaps my players trust me enough that they never demand a reason. Every now and then though I do encounter that "one guy." The one who just has to test how firm that no is. He is often new to the player pool so some latitude is granted. But he quickly learns my NO is unmoving and the only reason he will ever receive is "I do not want that in this game/campaign/setting". Followed by this question "No one else has issue with this; Why do you?"
My personal opinion on psionics is that it just doesn't fit into the setting that well in many cases. I would likely ban it in every single scenario. I am 99.9% certain that psionics are banned in Society games. So many players are used to playing them, that I think basically nobody remembers they are 3rd party.
No. I can't forget. It was core in D&D. In Pathfinder, I can't read three different threads without someone mentioning that it's .
Psionics was never "core". First party publisher (TSR, WotC) yes, but not core. It was always optional. From original D&D on it appeared in a supplement, not the "core" books. Now it's 3PP and, still, not core. Doesn't mean it's not "fun" of course...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Table has the following rules/rule clarifications. They are printed out and passed around, so no one is confused. You may disagree with some of these rulings and that is okay.
1. Synthesist Summoners must choose 1 single attack as its primary attack (1 claws evolution count as 1 primary attack). Having more than 1 attack of this type does not grant additional primary attacks.
2. Players may choose a maximum of one archetype per class they play. For example, if a Level 7 character has chosen to take 7 different classes, they are allowed the maximum of 1 archetype for each of the 7 different classes.
3. Blood Money: “Even valuable components worth more than 1 gp can be created, but creating such material components requires an additional cost of 1 point of Strength damage, plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp” The additional damage is strength damage.
4. Characters get 1 swift action or 1 immediate action per round. They may not substitute move or standard actions to grant them additional swift or immediate actions per round.
5. Scent has two shapes. It is either a 30 foot circle or in the shape of a tear drop (10 foot where the wind is coming from to 30 foot where the wind is going, with the sides being 15 foot from the center).
6. Players must have BOTH written up the statistics of their animal companions, familiars, mounts, pets, summoned creatures, etc. and given me a copy to use them in the gaming session.
7. If a player has Spell Resistance, they must tell me the number they have before each gaming session.
8. I will roll all spellcraft and perception rolls. Tell me your bonuses.
9. I will run cohorts as npcs. They will not be magical item crafters that sit in town making your gear while you adventure.
10. Wizard/Alchemist levels stack for familiars only when the Alchemist chooses the tumor familiar discovery. Wizard/Alchemists with the tumor familiar may only have one familiar at a time – either a tumor familiar or a regular familiar.
11. Rules are to be argued after combat, not during it. If a rule is done wrong that directly results in a character’s death, the character miraculously appears in the party later (with all their gear).
12. Creating Magical Items: Reduction in creation costs directly causes a reduction in sale costs of the same %.
13. Creating Magical Items: Players cannot add +5 to the DC if they do not meet the level prerequisite for 3x caster level per +1 enhancement bonus to a magical weapon/armor/shield.
14. Every character needs an alignment. Characters will have their alignments shifted as to how you play your character. Alignment shifts of certain classes may require atonement.
15. Perception: people can see beyond their perception bonus + 200 feet. They cannot make out keen details of something beyond their perception bonus + 200 feet (like a hidden monster waiting to ambush the party).
16. Mounted Charges and Ride-by Attack. The rules say charges happen in a straight line directly towards the target and ride-by attack allows for passage beyond a creature, possibly implying the need for overrun or trample. I believe ride-by attack feat grants charging not directly towards a creature.
17. Standing on a table is sufficient for the +1 attack bonus from ‘higher ground’ even if the table is only 2 feet tall.
18. Multiarmed Freaks: How much strength damage does my attack get? The offhand damage gets 50% of whatever the main hand gets. If a 4 armed character wields two two-handed swords, then the main hand would be maximum for the main attack and 50% higher for using a two-handed sword. Thus, the main hand would do 150% strength and the offhand would do 75% strength. There are various feats and spells to increase damage by additional 50% increments. If the main hand is increased again by 50%, then the main hand does 200% strength and the offhand does 100% strength. If the main hand is increased again by 50%, then the main hand does 250% strength and the offhand does 125% strength. I do not know of a way to get more than 3 -> 50% increases to strength damage at once.
19. Vestigial arms do not grant extra attacks per round, but they can be used to help out another hand wield a 2-handed weapon.
20. Alchemists do not cast spells. They are not arcane spell casters.
21. Sneak Attack from Multiple Sources: When you add the two+ classes that grant you sneak attack damage together, you gain an additional dice of sneak attack every time the classes add to an odd number. (1dX at 1, 2dX at 3, 3dX at 5)
22. Intelligent Items (such as those found with certain Magus Archetypes) can be upgraded by the intelligence bonuses as described on page 532 in the Core Rules. As to whether this item can be enhanced by other means will be decided later and apply to all future characters.
23. Magic Spells can be copied from magic scroll or spell book. See page 219 of the Core Rule Book. Spells learned from scrolls vanish leaving a sheet of paper behind. Scrolls are 25 x spell level x caster level.
24. Masterwork Skeleton Keys are made by 1 person in each city. A player must travel to multiple cities to gain multiple masterwork skeleton keys. A metropolis will have key makers in each districts. Skeleton Key makers are not publicized, as they are not the most legal craft in the world.
I would strongly suggest you do something like this if you are going to ban certain things.
Psionics was never "core". First party publisher (TSR, WotC) yes, but not core. It was always optional. From original D&D on it appeared in a supplement, not the "core" books. Now it's 3PP and, still, not core. Doesn't mean it's not "fun" of course...
There was an official quote connected to Complete Psionics that mentioned XPH as core. It was taken as somewhat of a joke by some of the posters on the WotC psionics boards and affirmation by a few. Since I can no longer find the reference, I retract my statement.
You're conflating two different things in order to put a negative spin on a GM's role in world creation. The first part is NOT the same as doing the second, nor is it a gateway, or dominno.
No. I'm not. I added the adage to make people think.
And the act of saying no is itself a negative. It is negation. It is subtraction. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Adding things is addition. It is a positive. However it is not necessarily a good thing.
Using a real world analogy (which will probably be accused of being a false analogy... and maybe it is. I don't know. It makes sense in my brain...), one can smoke cigarettes. One shouldn't. It has been empirically proved to cause cancer using cloned mice. One still has the option. Yes that's a value judgement.
Hemp is illegal in America. One should not use or grow hemp in America. On the basis that hemp grown for industrial use (press board, fabrics, petrochemical derivatives) makes an amazing commercial crop, it should be legal in America. It's not.
So we have an addition that doesn't have a positive influence (health) and a subtraction that has a negative influence (-money). It happens.
I think a lot of people ban psionics because its not fantasy enough for them. Reflavor it. Some ban it because they think its unbalanced. That's misconceptions. It isn't much different from core casting and its powers are more difficult to abuse than core spells.
I had a DM who banned leadership, the summoner, and companions for Kingmaker. We had a big group at the time, and he was worried about the extra characters taking too much time in combat. Fair enough. Same DM allowed everything but the summoner for a Skull and Shackles game. No reason given. I could respect the first because I understood it. I didn't respect the ruling the second time because I didn't understand it. If somebody says you can't do something and the reason is Because I Said So, how does it make you feel?
I think asking the question as "What Classes Do You Ban?" is not necessarily the best way of going about it, as opposed to asking "What Do You Include?". If anything, the second approach doesn't have the air of confrontation in it. As a GM, I'd much rather be put in the position of saying "Yes".
You just limited everything for your games in the same way someone saying no would. It's just a PR spin. I appreciate that. It has a manipulative artistry to it that is useful in managing people, which is necessary when managing a game session.
I acknowledge that a DM can ban things, that he may have good reasons, that it may make a better game. I think a DM Should have good reasons and believe that the limit Will make a Better Game before banning Anything should be considered.
I've agreed with a lot said here, yet I argue in defense of psionics because I like the system and love some of the concepts I have been able to more easily bring to the table. (Which in hindsight I worry I have done more harm than good because the ones that just wont flat out refuse, sometimes under a reasonable guise, while fence sitters may be dissuaded by my somewhat rabid ardor.)
The answer to the question "Is it bad form to ban classes?" is It Depends. And some in the thread have given good "It Depends" answers. And some have given personal preference. And I guess since this hobby runs on personal preference to some extent, those answers are just as valid, even though I might disagree...
|
|
It is okay IMO to ban or modify classes (or any element of the game really) on the two following conditions :
1) You tell the players from the beginning
2) You are open to explaining to your players why you made the ban and ready to adapt it if it really hampers their fun (see below).
And if you need them to trust you blindly on this, at least make the effort to understand why they want to play this class and try to find a way to integrate their expectations for fun within your constraints (another class, an archetype, some special ability or item : work together and be creative)
That said, this should be no license for a jerk player to harass his GM.
Psionics was never "core". First party publisher (TSR, WotC) yes, but not core. It was always optional. From original D&D on it appeared in a supplement, not the "core" books. Now it's 3PP and, still, not core. Doesn't mean it's not "fun" of course...
Actually the XPH is Core, the Complete books reference it as Core so it is actually Core in 3.5.
That may well have been their motivation Lazar, but seeing as they were the producers, it was more a classification than a claim.
