Restricting classes ...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

With the ACG out now, we have a mind-boggling 32 classes available for players, counting core, base, alternate, and hybrid classes. Have other GMs considered restricting classes as a way to shape their game world?

In a game I run, for example, we're doing a pseudo-European medieval setting, so I banned gunslingers, ninjas, and samurai. But it occurs to me that with the plethora of classes available, it's possible to create some interesting shapes to the game world by restricting them and tweaking other "allowables" in the campaign.

For example:

Weird West. A setting on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Magic is generally a rare, mystical thing, granted by mysterious, ancient bloodlines or mysterious spirits.

Banned classes: Wizard, cleric, arcanist, magus
Tweaked classes: Alchemist, who now draws his power from SCIENCE! rather than magic.
Other: "Guns everywhere" campaign

Any other thoughts in this vein?


One of my GMs is running a sci-fi campaign using reflavored pathfinder mechanics.
His next campaign cannot have power point based casting in it for some lore reason.
My other GM is running RotRL and has banned gunslingers, because in his mind the sociopolitical environment of Golarion would collapse with the introduction of guns.

Generally I never find limiting classes for flavor reasons to be a good thing. I do understand limiting classes for balance sake.

Liberty's Edge

Limited classes are an excellent way to institute particular thematic flavors to the setting. A low-magic game with no 9-level spellcasters or Summoners (or even no spellcasters at all, using Alchemists and Investigators to fill that role), or a Godless setting with no divine Magic (except maybe Druids), or a Stone Age setting with no classes that use spellbooks since writing doesn't exist yet, and none that rely on heavy armor since neither does that.

All of these are good and interesting ideas. I still am very tempted to run something in this vein with limited class choices to reflect a very specific setting and aesthetic.

Shadow Lodge

pennywit wrote:

With the ACG out now, we have a mind-boggling 32 classes available for players, counting core, base, alternate, and hybrid classes. Have other GMs considered restricting classes as a way to shape their game world?

In a game I run, for example, we're doing a pseudo-European medieval setting, so I banned gunslingers, ninjas, and samurai. But it occurs to me that with the plethora of classes available, it's possible to create some interesting shapes to the game world by restricting them and tweaking other "allowables" in the campaign.

For example:

Weird West. A setting on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Magic is generally a rare, mystical thing, granted by mysterious, ancient bloodlines or mysterious spirits.

Banned classes: Wizard, cleric, arcanist, magus
Tweaked classes: Alchemist, who now draws his power from SCIENCE! rather than magic.
Other: "Guns everywhere" campaign

Any other thoughts in this vein?

Actually, if I was doing weird west I would totally allow the arcanist. I mean a class who's schtick is a fundamental understanding of magical physics and the ability to tear it apart and mash it back together again just screams tesla like/steampunk style super science.

As for the fact that now we can build these highly nuanced curated class lists yeah that's true but in my experience I've usually found most classes to fit within a working narrative. For me it's usually more about blurring the lines of class thematically so that the world both feels more real (with people of various other skills being able to fill many rolls) and keeps the players from being stuck in the mindset of what class is listed on the character sheet being the only thing that determines what the character can do.

For example in my home game the elven god Oberon refers to his clerics as The Witch Brides. These clerics function in a lot of ways like fey inspired druids, showing off the power of their god through control or power over the forces of nature and the fey. There are many (especially amongst the common folk) who think they are druids. In reality they are all either clerics or witches (or now maybe some shamans) who focus on nature magics taught to them by the fey.

In another more general example a lot of the holy men in my home world aren't clerics but a mix of various classes often something like bards, adepts, experts, or potentially even wizards with the more important part of their character being what skills they have rather than the class name. For you to be a cleric you need to be recognized by the church and congregation which is usually more about having Knowledge (religion), diplomacy/perform (oratory), and sometimes the Heal skill then whether or not you can cast bless.

But now though, in the spirit of the post I will offer one suggestion.

Feudal/ancient Japan
Banned: Cleric and probably druid, some of the sorc bloodlines
Featured class (i.e. those that are more prominent than before): Shaman which acts as the Shinto priest


I don't restrict classes for balance reasons since I can deal with that as a GM during gameplay. I do restrict classes for flavor reasons, if they don't make sense for the setting. The "eastern" classes are good example. Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant. I usually restrict the summoner simply because that concept is already handled with either the druid or wizard/sorc.

Stuff like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally if I wanted weird west I'd be playing Deadlands.

But then again, I've repeated over and over again, there's a system out there for anything you want. Rather than shoehorning Pathfinder into a completely different game with a dozen houserules, banned classes, etc, just find one out there that does what you want.


I tend to ban wizards and modify sorcerers, clerics, and oracles. Wizards are replaced by focused casters like beguilers and dread necromancers, including homebrew options for things like transmuters. It helps to give spellcasters a more concretely defined flavor and make sorcerers more distinct by allowing them to break the "only one school" rule learned spellcasters tend to have.

With my most recent campaign due to the planet going to sleep druids have been banned and rangers changed.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Personally if I wanted weird west I'd be playing Deadlands.

This. I use PF for fantasy and if I feel like a different genre I tend to use different systems. My experience leads me to believe D&D/PF is not a one size fits all system. Of course you can try and lots of people suceed but for me I like variety and prefer it over smashing PF/D&D into every mold. YMMV.

If I do restrict a class its usually because I find it to be problematic mechanically at the table. The list is pretty small.


doc the grey wrote:


In another more general example a lot of the holy men in my home world aren't clerics but a mix of various classes often something like bards, adepts, experts, or potentially even wizards with the more important part of their character being what skills they have rather than the class name. For you to be a cleric you need to be recognized by the church and congregation which is usually more about having Knowledge (religion), diplomacy/perform (oratory), and sometimes the Heal skill then whether or not you can cast bless.

I kind of like this one; it's nice for a world where the gods have left the world behind. It also makes healing magic a little harder to come by.

Liberty's Edge

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Personally if I wanted weird west I'd be playing Deadlands.

But then again, I've repeated over and over again, there's a system out there for anything you want. Rather than shoehorning Pathfinder into a completely different game with a dozen houserules, banned classes, etc, just find one out there that does what you want.

While I actually agree with this in general, and run a lot of games with other systems...what if you just want to play Stone Age Pathfinder? Or Victorian Age/Wild West Pathfinder? Neither of those is enough of a stretch that using another game is necessary, especially if you want the high-magic feel of Pathfinder to be maintained (which really isn't supported by most other games, to be honest).

Now, if you want a Weird West game that's not ridiculously high powered and magical in the specific way Pathfinder is, then yes you'd be better off using a different system. But when you get right down to it, Pathfinder enables a very specific style and power level of game more than it does a specific setting or era. As long as you're looking to run that basic style and power level I think Pathfinder's a solid way to go.


In my games I limit it to CRB, APG and a print out for my custom setting (which now includes Swashbucklers). For a total of 18 classes. The less I have to keep track of the easier it is for me to run things smoothly.

I like to picture the classes I allow kind of like the alignment grid. With non-casters along the top and casters along the bottom, and half casters in the middle. Divine on the left, arcane on the right.

So it breaks down something like this…..

Fighter……….…Barbarian……...Rogue
Cavalier………...Monk…………..Swashbuckler*
………………………………………………………..
Paladin……….…Ranger………....Alchemist
Inquisitor………Bard……………..Summoner
………………………………………………………..
Cleric…………...Druid…………….Wizard
Oracle…………..Witch…………….Sorcerer

*Would be Gunslinger if I used guns in my setting.

The ACG classes are nice and all but it's just that many more rules to keep track of. Also in not covering all the possible combinations of parent classes it just feels incomplete. They are not something I'll be using at my table. I'll just have my players stick to good old fashioned multi-classing.


Rarely. The Gunslinger might be the only one I'd consider, and if they ever get the Bolt Ace working, then that'll be the required archetype.

Past that, with reflavoring, pretty much any class fits just fine in any setting. I generally only ban things if they're overpowered.

Shadow Lodge

pennywit wrote:
doc the grey wrote:


In another more general example a lot of the holy men in my home world aren't clerics but a mix of various classes often something like bards, adepts, experts, or potentially even wizards with the more important part of their character being what skills they have rather than the class name. For you to be a cleric you need to be recognized by the church and congregation which is usually more about having Knowledge (religion), diplomacy/perform (oratory), and sometimes the Heal skill then whether or not you can cast bless.

I kind of like this one; it's nice for a world where the gods have left the world behind. It also makes healing magic a little harder to come by.

Lol it actually has less to do with gods having left so much as it does the idea of training to be a true cleric is really rare or really difficult. Actually being a cleric takes a lot of work and dedication that not all people can do but there are still a lot of people who are clerics. It also makes things like infiltrators more possible since you no longer can just detect evil sweep the monastery and play detect the cultist.

Ohh another fun one is primitive setting. Drop cleric and maybe druid and push shaman and oracle. Also maybe dump wizard and keep alchemist as a priest option who creates poultices and things to use on people.

Grand Lodge

I actually like the occasional theme game with restricted classes. Other systems may be "better" but come on - role playing games are not the easiest thing in the world to learn. Deadlands might do Weird West better but my friends know Pathfinder. Easier to make Pathfinder fit a concept, no matter how imperfect, than have 6 guys stumbling through a game and pausing every 5 minutes to check the rules.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
I actually like the occasional theme game with restricted classes. Other systems may be "better" but come on - role playing games are not the easiest thing in the world to learn. Deadlands might do Weird West better but my friends know Pathfinder. Easier to make Pathfinder fit a concept, no matter how imperfect,

I disagree. Ripping a game down to it's core levels and then rebuilding it is way less work than reading a new book of rules. Especially if it's a book like Savage Worlds, where Deadlands currently takes place. It's what, 18 pages of actual rules? I'm exaggerating the brevity of that book, but my point remains. When it comes to effort: Reading < Rebuilding.


No bards/skalds here unless an archetype can be found to replace bardic performance. I understand the idea of combat musicians when we're talking about armies of hundreds of men. But one man banging the drums in a party of five is beyond my silly limit.


Generally no, I don't see a point. The "Eastern" classes everyone gets so scared about are painfully easy to refluff. Gunslingers? There's an archetype that dumps guns for them, and even ignoring that simply replacing "gun" with "crossbow" at every entry is, again, a trivially easy way to deal with the class' potential thematic conflicts.

Hell, ironically allowing Eastern classes is probably more conducive to a flavorful campaign in that example, since no one is going to be a knight (especially an unmounted knight) better than the samurai and you basically can't do a crossbowman in stock Pathfinder and the ninja slots anywhere you'd want to slot a rogue anyways.

I suppose I could see the argument for banning 9th level casters if you're looking to cut back on magic, but even that feels like a stretch to me.

discosoc wrote:
Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant.

That seems more like vindictive DMing than restricting classes for flavor reasons.

Zolanoteph wrote:
But one man banging the drums in a party of five is beyond my silly limit.

That's... not what a bard does though.


anlashok wrote:


discosoc wrote:
Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant.

That seems more like vindictive DMing than restricting classes for flavor reasons.

Zolanoteph wrote:
But one man banging the drums in a party of five is beyond my silly limit.
That's... not what a bard does though.

Yeah that's some aggressively bad GMing


I don't ban anything, but I do require role play catches for things like ninjas, samurai, and monks to have characters that are either more eastern flavored, or that were trained by someone more eastern flavored (like Bruce Wayne being trained by Kirigi in the arts of ninjitsu).

I expect my players to play a character, not a mass of numbers or as we call them, "walking stat blocks." It also keeps the power gaming down.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I disagree. Ripping a game down to it's core levels and then rebuilding it is way less work than reading a new book of rules. Especially if it's a book like Savage Worlds, where Deadlands currently takes place. It's what, 18 pages of actual rules? I'm exaggerating the brevity of that book, but my point remains. When it comes to effort: Reading < Rebuilding.

This is true if actual rebuilding is necessary (and why I immediately suggested another system when someone a few months ago was suggesting using Pathfinder for a zombie apocalypse in a modern setting with no magic...I mean, at that point you're not using anything that even approximates Pathfinder's system goals).

But this isn't actually rebuilding the system. You can literally just adjust one or two rules and do Wild West/Victorian stuff with no problems. The hard-to-adjust part of Pathfinder is stuff like Vancian casting or a four to six encounter adventuring day, or the need for a wide array of magic items, not it being strictly medieval fantasy.

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
anlashok wrote:


discosoc wrote:
Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant.

That seems more like vindictive DMing than restricting classes for flavor reasons.

Zolanoteph wrote:
But one man banging the drums in a party of five is beyond my silly limit.
That's... not what a bard does though.
Yeah that's some aggressively bad GMing

I've really gotta agree. Penalizing Alchemists is deeply silly, and Bards are people who, say, sing or shout orders as they fight (or insults at the opposition)...not just someone who sits in the back drumming.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I don't ban anything, but I do require role play catches for things like ninjas, samurai, and monks to have characters that are either more eastern flavored, or that were trained by someone more eastern flavored (like Bruce Wayne being trained by Kirigi in the arts of ninjitsu).

I expect my players to play a character, not a mass of numbers or as we call them, "walking stat blocks." It also keeps the power gaming down.

Why pre-tell are samurais any more weird and foreign than summoners? Is your campaign explicitly based on western Europe only? Even if it is samurai really is just a cavalier with focus on dueling/personal combat over tactics. Does this mean that all cavaliers have to be explicitly western European knights? What about armored horse riders that aren't western European or Samurai? Do mongol heavy lancers, Three Kingdom esq chinese champion generals, and Moorish cavalry all need need archtypes because they aren't western cavaliers or samurai? Personally that seems a bit silly to me. Gawain, Guan Yu, and El Cid are all samurai under the Pathfinder rules given their emphasis on personal performance on the battlefield. Conversely King Arthur, Ghengis Khan, and Oda Nobunaga would all be cavaliers due to their use of tactical feats.

All this aside though I do rename monk, samurai, and ninja in my games explicitly to fix this mentality. Samurai are champions, ninjas are assassins (the prestige class is broken into ninja tricks), and monks are meditatives (representing Buddhist monks, yogis, and Catholic/Orthodox incorruptibles).


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I don't ban anything, but I do require role play catches for things like ninjas, samurai, and monks to have characters that are either more eastern flavored, or that were trained by someone more eastern flavored (like Bruce Wayne being trained by Kirigi in the arts of ninjitsu).

I expect my players to play a character, not a mass of numbers or as we call them, "walking stat blocks." It also keeps the power gaming down.

Why pre-tell are samurais any more weird and foreign than summoners? Is your campaign explicitly based on western Europe only? Even if it is samurai really is just a cavalier with focus on dueling/personal combat over tactics. Does this mean that all cavaliers have to be explicitly western European knights? What about armored horse riders that aren't western European or Samurai? Do mongol heavy lancers, Three Kingdom esq chinese champion generals, and Moorish cavalry all need need archtypes because they aren't western cavaliers or samurai? Personally that seems a bit silly to me. Gawain, Guan Yu, and El Cid are all samurai under the Pathfinder rules given their emphasis on personal performance on the battlefield. Conversely King Arthur, Ghengis Khan, and Oda Nobunaga would all be cavaliers due to their use of tactical feats.

All this aside though I do rename monk, samurai, and ninja in my games explicitly to fix this mentality. Samurai are champions, ninjas are assassins (the prestige class is broken into ninja tricks), and monks are meditatives (representing Buddhist monks, yogis, and Catholic/Orthodox incorruptibles).

Summoners are also on that list, forgot to mention them.... whoops

But also yes, My game world (I randomly generated it) actually has 4 main continents on one hemisphere, and I've only really developed one of them, and portions of another. Mostly it exists in a very typical medieval fantasy world, where the others have other hooks to them to make them more like other places in fantasy. Northern continent is all ice/snow, and covers the north pole. South covers the equator, and includes a vast desert where I have access to a lot of Egyptian themes and other desert-based mythologies. The land to the west is a more pre-colonial Americas like place with mostly nature-tied culture rather than religion tied, mimicking pre-colonial Native American tribes.

When I generated for the other side of the planet, I actually got only one continent, so I decided to make it a supercontinent that covered all the oriental bases and was over ruled with Imperial Dragons, samurai orders, ninja clans, and monks. These characters exist on any of my continents with no problem, but where they are from matters.


I've thought that it would be neat to have a campaign where I have 2 groups playing on different days, and the actions of one group would be antagonistic to the other.

The campaign would be set in an empire where Divine and Arcane casters are at war - the Divine casters believe Arcane casters to be commanded by eldritch beings who wish to cause havoc to the world (Great Old Ones); the Arcane casters believe that their deities are the true creators of the world, and the Divine casters' deities are usurpers and corrupters.

Both groups would have access to the following non-caster classes (who would act as third-part mercenary agents):

Alchemist
Barbarian
Untouchable Rager
Brawler
Cavalier
Fighter
Gunslinger
Investigator
Monk
Warrior of Holy Light
Temple Champion
Skirmisher
Rogue
Ninja
Samurai
Slayer
Swashbuckler

Those who side with the Arcane casters would only be able to play the following Caster Classes and play on Day 1:

Arcanist
Bard
Bloodrager
Magus
Skald
Sorcerer
Summoner
Witch
Wizard

Those who side with the Divine casters would only be able to play the following Caster Classes and play on Day 2:

Cleric
Druid
Hunter
Inquisitor
Oracle
Paladin
Ranger
Shaman
Warpriest


That still leaves a question about the classes though. If a general on that super continent is a master tactician without any real use for the resolve ability could he be a cavalier instead of a samurai? If so does that mean he had to be trained on the European continent?

Also just a thing for developing the pre-columbian area you might want to look into differing Native American cultures. Druid-esq animism was not nearly as omnipresent as Hollywood would lead you to believe.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:

That still leaves a question about the classes though. If a general on that super continent is a master tactician without any real use for the resolve ability could he be a cavalier instead of a samurai? If so does that mean he had to be trained on the European continent?

Also just a thing for developing the pre-columbian area you might want to look into differing Native American cultures. Druid-esq animism was not nearly as omnipresent as Hollywood would lead you to believe.

Not just Native Americans, but a lot of cultures where Nature is revered more than supernatural deities in more western cultures like Rome or Greece.

Like I said, I haven't really developed more than my one main continent, so I couldn't say about role playing on the other ones, I just have a general idea of what they are like.


See, the problem I have is that I could easily see myself wanting to play an unmounted knight and would find Sword Saint to be a much better option than the fighter or cavalier.


anlashok wrote:
See, the problem I have is that I could easily see myself wanting to play an unmounted knight and would find Sword Saint to be a much better option than the fighter or cavalier.

If I was the DM I would offer some homebrewed options for that (especially because the sword saint is pretty bad).


There is a campaign world I am still working on. It will ban certain things.
Summoners of all stripes will be out. Summon monster, summon natures ally, gate, binding, teleport, dimension door, plane shift, haste, slow, expeditious retreat, bag of holding, gloves of storing, etc... Basically anything that affects time (hast/slow), spatial relations ships (teleport), or brings things in from 'elsewhere' are not allowed. There is an in-game reason for this that the PC's will eventually figure out. They might even be able to do something about it if they are willing to deal with the consequences.

For totally separate in-game reasons there are no mystic theurge, elves, orcs, half-orcs, or guns (not sure on alchemists yet). There are a couple of elves in hiding that the PC's will eventually encounter, but not PC elves. Almost no monk, samurai, ninja, or other oriental based themes (one very tiny enclave viewed with much suspicion and hatred with a big penalty on any social interactions). Gnolls and Hobgoblins will be available as a PC race (maybe lizardfolk).

I suppose if one of them wanted, they could work on being the person that invents guns in this realm. But no starting out as a gunslinger. (Most of the deities would take a dim view of this though it hasn't yet been forbidden by dogma.)

Other full casters have some additional restrictions. Clerics, oracles, inquisitors are held to almost paladin like codes depending upon the deity (not that restrictive, but the same concept). Powerful arcane casters eventually start to develop mental instabilities. The deities absolutely despise arcane casters and there clerics will have to work hard to justify helping them. (There is NOT a god of magic.)
There was something with druids and rangers, but I can't remember right now.

Sovereign Court

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

One of my GMs is running a sci-fi campaign using reflavored pathfinder mechanics.

His next campaign cannot have power point based casting in it for some lore reason.
My other GM is running RotRL and has banned gunslingers, because in his mind the sociopolitical environment of Golarion would collapse with the introduction of guns.

Generally I never find limiting classes for flavor reasons to be a good thing. I do understand limiting classes for balance sake.

Why not just use the old d20 modern/future? I actually liked the vibe a lot. I really liked the whole class AC thing. (basically defense BAB for anyone not familiar) Balance was a bit off between the base classes - but still a solid system.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

One of my GMs is running a sci-fi campaign using reflavored pathfinder mechanics.

His next campaign cannot have power point based casting in it for some lore reason.
My other GM is running RotRL and has banned gunslingers, because in his mind the sociopolitical environment of Golarion would collapse with the introduction of guns.

Generally I never find limiting classes for flavor reasons to be a good thing. I do understand limiting classes for balance sake.

Why not just use the old d20 modern/future? I actually liked the vibe a lot. I really liked the whole class AC thing. (basically defense BAB for anyone not familiar) Balance was a bit off between the base classes - but still a solid system.

We like PF better/aren't going to be bothered to learn a new system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've really gotta agree. Penalizing Alchemists is deeply silly, and Bards are people who, say, sing or shout orders as they fight (or insults at the opposition)...not just someone who sits in the back drumming.

Bah! Penalizing Alchemists, I really don't understand, but I completely understand banning Bards for flavor reasons, particularly if grit is what you're after.

Shouting orders and/or insults is, first, often a huge flavor stretch for the mechanical powers that a Bard can actually wield, and second, who says he gets to shout orders? The Bard being fluffed as a sort of "squad leader" assumes that this is actually his role, that the other PCs would actually listen, and that he is actually being played as such. As a player, I might find it strange that the tap dancer over there is such a wonderful tactician that a few words of his babble make me fight better, especially if the player's actual commands most of the time consist of "go over there and hit that guy".

Generally speaking, I ban Druids, Summoners and Paragon Surge Sorcerers for simple mechanical/balance reasons, and go from there. The Bard is in my grey area depending on the mood of the campaign and whether or not I have a player who I think could actually play an entertaining specimen of the class. The Arcanist and its children have recently entered my grey area, as well, and may end up permabanned pending more thorough playtesting.


discosoc wrote:

Alchemists usually get restricted unless the player REALLY wants to play one, and even then they have to deal with things like vials breaking and stuff whenever relevant.

Stuff like that.

I certainly hope if you do this, that you also check for the Fighter's sword/armor being damaged and the Wizard's spell components getting wet/damaged/unusable. Seems a bit punitive.


I only restrict classes for flavor reasons. We play with Core, Advanced, Ultimate, et all + a wide variety of 3pp normally. So Time Warden, Mosaic Mage, Echo, Riven Mage, Godlings, Luckbringers, Hellions, Vitalists, Psions, Wilders, Soul Blades, Sparks and many others have shown up at our tables.

But when making a world I'll start to think about where the various options will fit. Sometimes a player makes a specific request and I'll note that including that class changes the build of the universe I'm creating. Other times I'll just note that something will be restricted only for story reasons. My spelljammer game with the Raging Comet of Evil Doom basically disallowed any and all psionic characters because the story wouldn't allow for them. Nothing against the mechanics, just...not for this particular story.

Haven't seen any classes that would require banning for mechanics or balance reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overall I am less in the habit of banning and more in the habit of reflavoring to fit a current world.

Example: I have a friend who absolutely loves the samurai class. Not just because of it's flavor. (Although I'm pretty sure his religious reading of Shogun and Tai Pei (sp?) had something to do with that I couldn't get through 200 pages, personally. It was just too boring.) He also likes the mechanics of it. He likes the abilities the class grants. So, if I'm hell-bent on making a western world, and I feel like being a douche and not letting there ever be a single eastern class because that's not in my image of a story (which I usually won't...I tend to tweak my universes a little to my players liking), then I'll still let him play a samurai. I just don't call it a samurai.

I mean, is it really so hard to believe that westerners could never have mastered a combination of combat expertise, self-discipline, and a code of honor? When it comes to ninja, are we really to believe that it never could have happened that a stealhy warrior harnessing inner energy came from anywhere but the east? That's a little...well, what's the Asian equivalent of Anglo-Centric?

Gunslingers I can see people not liking, or Technomancer, or other high-tech, sci-fi stuff. I don't like peanut butter of sci-fi in my chocolate fantasy, either, but if a player is absolutely dead-set on it, I let him play one, but give a caveat that he or she must have the skill to be the inventor of anything they're using, or something along those lines.

Now, onto banning things because they're "broken" or "too powerful".

Generally I don't. If a player is kicking my butt with a character, I STFU and step up my game as a GM. I don't believe it's fair to gimp players because they're good at what they do.

Players will lay your most amazing plans to waste. That crap happens. you just have to deal with it as a GM and move on.

I realize some people use APs and don't have time to make their own games, challenges, etc, up, but honestly...if you play your NPCs, monsters, minions, etc, intelligently, usually the difficulty level of most APs is suitable to present a decent challenge to most parties. Sure, you can't be tactical with zombies or vermin or the like, but the majority of enemies you come across in the APs I've seen are intelligent humanoids which can take advantage of tactics, terrain, etc, to present a difficult course of action for the enemies. If your players are so tricked-out optimized that they're blowing through an AP without much difficulty, realize that's probably what they wanted to do in the first place, and it's how they have fun. Some people want to dominate. If all your players, or most of them, are like this, you're ruining their fun by whipping out the ban stick.

You're free to ban whatever you want in your world, but I always thought it was a cooperative storytelling game. I try to cater my world, at least partially, to player desires and expectations. I mean, if one of my players just bought ultimate magic, I'd kind of be a prick to run a low-magic game, IMO.


I do my best to encourage my players to choose from a wide variety of classes, both Pathfinder and 3PP. The only ones I've found that just don't have a place in my homebrew setting are Samurai, Ninjas, Gunslingers, and Dragonriders.

Sovereign Court

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

One of my GMs is running a sci-fi campaign using reflavored pathfinder mechanics.

His next campaign cannot have power point based casting in it for some lore reason.
My other GM is running RotRL and has banned gunslingers, because in his mind the sociopolitical environment of Golarion would collapse with the introduction of guns.

Generally I never find limiting classes for flavor reasons to be a good thing. I do understand limiting classes for balance sake.

Why not just use the old d20 modern/future? I actually liked the vibe a lot. I really liked the whole class AC thing. (basically defense BAB for anyone not familiar) Balance was a bit off between the base classes - but still a solid system.
We like PF better/aren't going to be bothered to learn a new system.

Fair enough - though it isn't very different for the most part. d20 modern is basically a variation on 3.5. The only rule that's too much different is that sundering most things is easier - which is basically to make melee viable vs guns. (and because sunderers can't get adamantium)

Heck - you could just play Pathfinder rules but with d20 modern classes & equipment. (and probably their money system - it's easier for a modern setting than keeping track of credits or whatever)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:

Bah! Penalizing Alchemists, I really don't understand, but I completely understand banning Bards for flavor reasons, particularly if grit is what you're after.

Shouting orders and/or insults is, first, often a huge flavor stretch for the mechanical powers that a Bard can actually wield,

Uh...no it isn't. How else would one use Perform (Comedy)? And the orders are perfectly valid fluff for Perform (Oratory), as would be speeches ala the St. Crispin's Day speech.

Or they could sing a battle chant while wading into the enemy, or a keening song that drives foes mad or bends them to their will. Or a dozen other possibilities.

If you envision Bards as 'just a musician' or 'not gritty', you lack imagination.

the secret fire wrote:
and second, who says he gets to shout orders? The Bard being fluffed as a sort of "squad leader" assumes that this is actually his role, that the other PCs would actually listen, and that he is actually being played as such.

Well obviously. It was an example of how to do it, not the only way to make it work. Any personality or fluff for a character that involves the other PCs needs to have them on board.

the secret fire wrote:
As a player, I might find it strange that the tap dancer over there is such a wonderful tactician that a few words of his babble make me fight better, especially if the player's actual commands most of the time consist of "go over there and hit that guy".

Well, first, if he's dancing, he's doing some sort of ridiculous sword dance that inspires his side and terrifies the other, not giving orders. Orders are a pretty specific form of Performance and would fall under Perform (Oratory).

Second, his orders don't have to be tactically brilliant, just inspiring. Think NCO or drill sergeant "Keep it together, men! Hit 'em where it hurts, we've trained for this!" isn't tactically relevant, but it's the kind of real order that gets called out, and helps. Now, that's an example for relatively green troops, but you get the idea.


pennywit wrote:

With the ACG out now, we have a mind-boggling 32 classes available for players, counting core, base, alternate, and hybrid classes. Have other GMs considered restricting classes as a way to shape their game world?

In a game I run, for example, we're doing a pseudo-European medieval setting, so I banned gunslingers, ninjas, and samurai. But it occurs to me that with the plethora of classes available, it's possible to create some interesting shapes to the game world by restricting them and tweaking other "allowables" in the campaign.

For example:

Weird West. A setting on the cusp of an industrial revolution. Magic is generally a rare, mystical thing, granted by mysterious, ancient bloodlines or mysterious spirits.

Banned classes: Wizard, cleric, arcanist, magus
Tweaked classes: Alchemist, who now draws his power from SCIENCE! rather than magic.
Other: "Guns everywhere" campaign

Any other thoughts in this vein?

Why restrict Wizard, Cleric, Arcanist and Magus? Those can easily fit in 'weird west'.

Wizards have a gun slinging archetype, Clerics can be zealous preacher types, Arcanist does a lot of what sorcerer/wizard can do so if those fit it does, Magus I've played in a 'western fantasy' situation and it worked out okay in flavor.

Alchemist is already pretty sciency so there's that. His only real magical ability is his gatorade casting.

Id recommend introducing 'Thunderscape' mostly because magic is kind of hard to key out of Pathfinder as a system so may as well equate magic and technology much like the Alchemist does.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
the secret fire wrote:

Bah! Penalizing Alchemists, I really don't understand, but I completely understand banning Bards for flavor reasons, particularly if grit is what you're after.

Shouting orders and/or insults is, first, often a huge flavor stretch for the mechanical powers that a Bard can actually wield,

Uh...no it isn't. How else would one use Perform (Comedy)? And the orders are perfectly valid fluff for Perform (Oratory), as would be speeches ala the St. Crispin's Day speech.

Or they could sing a battle chant while wading into the enemy, or a keening song that drives foes mad or bends them to their will. Or a dozen other possibilities.

If you envision Bards as 'just a musician' or 'not gritty', you lack imagination.

I just have to add this ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a western I'd play a bard as an archeologist or a guy with a red and white striped shirt, handlebar mustache and straw hat that sings like Tom Lehrar and sells you snake oil for a night with your daughters. probably perform oratory to get my enemies to mess up rather than raise the spirits of my team mates.


Malwing wrote:
In a western I'd play a bard as an archeologist or a guy with a red and white striped shirt, handlebar mustache and straw hat that sings like Tom Lehrar and sells you snake oil for a night with your daughters. probably perform oratory to get my enemies to mess up rather than raise the spirits of my team mates.

Tom Lehrar for the win!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Malwing wrote:
In a western I'd play a bard as an archeologist or a guy with a red and white striped shirt, handlebar mustache and straw hat that sings like Tom Lehrar and sells you snake oil for a night with your daughters. probably perform oratory to get my enemies to mess up rather than raise the spirits of my team mates.
Tom Lehrar for the win!

I was specifically thinking of 'The Old Dope Peddler' when I described that bard.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...no it isn't. How else would one use Perform (Comedy)? And the orders are perfectly valid fluff for Perform (Oratory), as would be speeches ala the St. Crispin's Day speech.

Yes, that's right...it's St. Crispin's Day...every day!

Quote:
Or they could sing a battle chant while wading into the enemy, or a keening song that drives foes mad or bends them to their will. Or a dozen other possibilities.

You seriously don't see how another person might find that corny?

Quote:
Second, his orders don't have to be tactically brilliant, just inspiring. Think NCO or drill sergeant "Keep it together, men! Hit 'em where it hurts, we've trained for this!" isn't tactically relevant, but it's the kind of real order that gets called out, and helps. Now, that's an example for relatively...

I don't get the impression you've ever given or taken orders. What you are suggesting is simply laughable. The closest modern example of anything roughly bard-like is probably the bagpipe players who were in abundance on the British lines at the commencement of the first world war. Perhaps their tooting inspired the men...perhaps...but then again, the vast majority of those men were cut down by machine gun fire or blows to bits by artillery (often within seconds of going over the top), so I'm not sure exactly what the pipes inspired the men to, besides perhaps suicidal indifference to their own lives. Sweet combat effect.

Liberty's Edge

the secret fire wrote:
Yes, that's right...it's St. Crispin's Day...every day!

Well, obviously you vary your speeches...

the secret fire wrote:
You seriously don't see how another person might find that corny?

The singing while going into combat? Given that many ancient cultures did that all the time...yeah, finding it corny seems unreasonable.

And the mind control stuff as compared to a Wizard chanting some stuff and wiggling his fingers and it happening? Also unreasonable.

the secret fire wrote:
I don't get the impression you've ever given or taken orders. What you are suggesting is simply laughable.

I came up with the example in about five seconds, gimme a break. :)

Besides, inspiring leaders giving orders matter much more in the melee of hand-to-hand combat than it odes on a modern battlefield. For a host of reasons.

the secret fire wrote:
The closest modern example of anything roughly bard-like is probably the bagpipe players who were in abundance on the British lines at the commencement of the first world war. Perhaps their tooting inspired the men...perhaps...but then again, the vast majority of those men were cut down by machine gun fire or blows to bits by artillery (often within seconds of going over the top), so I'm not sure exactly what the pipes inspired the men to, besides perhaps suicidal indifference to their own lives. Sweet combat effect.

Actually...striding directly into enemy fire with suicidal indifference to their own lives was pretty much how you won major battles before the advent of gunpowder weapons (specifically artillery and automatic weapons)...so, yes, that is a sweet combat effect. Just not one that was properly used in the correct situation.


the secret fire wrote:

Or they could sing a battle chant while wading into the enemy, or a keening song that drives foes mad or bends them to their will. Or a dozen other possibilities.

You seriously don't see how another person might find that corny?

I can see how it could be executed in a corny fashion. I can also see how it would be executed in a terrifyingly realistic fashion. Music can be every bit as much the psychological weapon in personal combat as it has been in warfare.

In fact, it's interesting that you chose drums as the silly option considering their historical context as weapons of war and their ubiquity in serious fictional portrayals of ceremonial combat.

Add to that the fact that a bardic performance is supernatural (and thus has magical properties to compel the audience), it's hardly immersion breaking in a world of wizards and channelers of divine power. Bards, as written, are not mundane--they are closer to sorcerers than rogues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point that some people make is that the huge bonuses that a bard can give seem a bit over the top for a performance.

Give green, terrified, broken, troops a slight increase in morale? Yes that is reasonable for an inspiring speech or commands. But it isn't going to do much other than annoy experienced elite veteran troops. And PC's (by mid levels) are supposedly beyond all but superheroes, but it is expected to suddenly make them perform better?

Have a war chant that throughout history has presaged great victories and the massacre of the defeated? Yeah ok, that might terrify raw green troops or even upset veteran troops that have experience with that foe. But JimmyJoe over there stands behind the fighters and he does a musical/martial kata so well that veterans (nearly as experienced as the PC's who are superheroes) suddenly lose all control of their bowels? Sorry, no I'm not buying it. It is just too far past my suspension of disbelief.

If the authors way back at the beginning editions had described it as a sound based illusion magic based on the caster level with buff effects and debuff effects with a saving throw, I'd probably be just fine with it. And I know some GM's and players refluff it as sonic based magic, but some of us can't stop remembering that it is still performance (dance) or performance (flute) that is supposed to have all these staggering effects.

I don't ban bards and I don't give them a hard time at the table. But I can't play them myself and internally I can only sigh when players describe all these amazing results of performance (comedy).


I don't ban classes, classes to me are the mechanic it's how you flavor the class that counts. To use you example of a medieval setting I'd say no to Ninjas in traditional sense but if player wanted to play a medieval styled ninja I'd be curious to see what they come up with.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

One of my GMs is running a sci-fi campaign using reflavored pathfinder mechanics.

His next campaign cannot have power point based casting in it for some lore reason.
My other GM is running RotRL and has banned gunslingers, because in his mind the sociopolitical environment of Golarion would collapse with the introduction of guns.

Generally I never find limiting classes for flavor reasons to be a good thing. I do understand limiting classes for balance sake.

Why not just use the old d20 modern/future? I actually liked the vibe a lot. I really liked the whole class AC thing. (basically defense BAB for anyone not familiar) Balance was a bit off between the base classes - but still a solid system.
We like PF better/aren't going to be bothered to learn a new system.

Fair enough - though it isn't very different for the most part. d20 modern is basically a variation on 3.5. The only rule that's too much different is that sundering most things is easier - which is basically to make melee viable vs guns. (and because sunderers can't get adamantium)

Heck - you could just play Pathfinder rules but with d20 modern classes & equipment. (and probably their money system - it's easier for a modern setting than keeping track of credits or whatever)

Sounds like work, what we're doing is pretty effortless.

It's really easy to just re-flavor things.


blahpers wrote:

...

Add to that the fact that a bardic performance is supernatural (and thus has magical properties to compel the audience), it's hardly immersion breaking in a world of wizards and channelers of divine power. Bards, as written, are not mundane--they are closer to sorcerers than rogues.

That is probably the most persuasive argument in favor of the bard abilities. You are the first pro-bard person I've heard/seen advance that into the discussion. All I've ever heard is a 6 second performance or inspiring declaration that is supposed to change everything.

I will try to keep the SU aspect in mind the next time Chris goes off on how his amazing sitar riffs inspire us to heroic levels.


the secret fire wrote:
As a player, I might find it strange that the tap dancer over there is such a wonderful tactician that a few words of his babble make me fight better, especially if the player's actual commands most of the time consist of "go over there and hit that guy".

You know the bard is literally magical, right? Saying "It doesn't make sense that it would be inspirational" is like saying it doesn't make sense that the Wizard can create a 20 ft sphere of destruction with a couple bat droppings.

Quote:
Generally speaking, I ban Druids, Summoners and Paragon Surge Sorcerers for simple mechanical/balance reasons, and go from there.

You can druids and summoners for balance complaints but leave wizards, witches and clerics? Odd.

Quote:
You seriously don't see how another person might find that corny?

You seriously don't see how the idea that it's somehow "nonsensical" when it's both something that's been done in real life for thousands of years and is literally magic comes across more as 'looking for a reason to be mad' than anything else?

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Restricting classes ... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.