I ban wizard and bard because they don't match my flavour of arcane magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty much only ban things for thematic reasons.
For instance, if I'm running a desert game, create water is not available.
Mechanically, I'm pretty much fine with everything. I just tell my players to please not make disruptive or game-breaking characters. Amazing how many problems that stops.
Mechanically, I'm pretty much fine with everything. I just tell my players to please not make disruptive or game-breaking characters. Amazing how many problems that stops.Do you define 'game-breaking' for them? Because game-breaking is the kind of term that means something different to different people.
I mean it in the literal sense, as in "Makes the game hard for me to run."
So far the only thing that really fell int this category was a certain Master Summoner. In a small group it would have been fine, but in a group that already had 7 people, all the extra critters slowed combat down too much.
What is your list? Are any of these overblown?
Summoner, Dhampir, Leadership as well as Paizo FAQ and Errata.
The closest thing I have ever had to a ban list was for games that used material with an old school flavor. Even then it was more along the lines of, "here is the flavor I am going for, please try to keep to it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone says Leadership is so overpowered. I have not found it so. Sure, you can make a healer. Or a buffer. Big whoop. Fights last three rounds, leaving little time for buffing to be all that effective, and wands of CLW have superseded most combat healing. The fact of the matter is that the cohort will always be at least two levels weaker than the leader. Those two levels MATTER. And if the campaign goes mythic, Leadership is just a useless feat. The problem with Leadership is that it takes time. Then again, so do animal companions.
As to leadership: Just use the squire feat instead without upgrading to leadership and disallow it for casters. No problem. Now you can either have spells or two martial PCs. That still doesn't give you the power or versatility of a caster but slightly lessens the gap.
I think starting from the PFS setting and deciding what, if anything, you want to allow back in is a good way to go.
Slumber is sweet but the paranoia is a little overblown. Color spray is just as much, if not more, of a wrecking ball at low levels and acid pit is worse at mid-high levels. Which are more common, undead/constructs or flying creatures?
The main thing is that the single bad guy fight doesn't work. Even if he doesn't get one hit KO'ed he will get swarmed over in a tide of action economy. Multiple monsters that total up to the same CR usually make for a more difficult and IMO more interesting fight. Also, monsters on the buddy system take a lot of sting out of the super-giant-killer hex by virtue of being able to shake each other awake.
One thing you might want to change from PFS is the free availability of magic items and wands. The ubiquitous CLW wand makes it very hard to grind down a group's HP over time. OTOH the alternative is probably the fifteen minute adventuring day. Striking the right balance is a judgment call.
The only time I ban things is when they don't fit in thematically with what I'm running. it takes a lot to do it, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to do the opposite. You're proposing a blacklist.
I use a whitelist. You can only use things from an approved list, all other sources require my explicit permission.
For me:
a.Core Rulebook
b.Advanced Players Guide
c.Advanced Race Guide – without Race Builder
d.Ultimate Magic
e.Ultimate Combat
f.Ultimate Equipment
g.Advanced Class Guide
h.Pathfinder Unchained (Classes only, other systems may be implemented by myself)
Once I have time to read Occult Adventures that will be added as well. I like to whitelist materials that I have read and understand and am relatively familiar with. Other items are added on an ad-hoc basis because it allows to me read through the material and provide approval based on my feelings of whether or not it is balanced.
Of course, I do also have restrictions for things based in the above books but it is all outlined in the 6 page house rule document I have made over the past 3 years.
SNIP
So the RPG line basically.
|
My ban list for what it's worth:
Vanilla Summoner: the spell list was way too out of whack.
Master Summoner: same reason as OP above.
3rd party: because I believe there is enough in Paizo already
Splat books: if it's not hard cover I don't want to see it.
Gunslinger: only if the current setting does not have guns in it
Leadership: Causes more problems with my players than it provides flavor (I really like Just a Guess's suggestion on this one, I may use it)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes
Like many posters here, most of the things I don't allow in my homegames are in the blacklist because they don't fit the campaign thematically. For example one class that hardly sees the light at my table is the Gunslinger, for flavor reasons. However, we're about to start a P6 Skull & Shackles campaign in which I'm happy to say that we have a Gunslinger at the table.
One of the only exceptions to that is the pre-Unchained Summoner, which I never allow playing (archetype or not). I don't like the class and its potential to break the game. I'm happy with the Unchained version, which I'll gladly allow if a player wants to play a Summoner.
Races
I usually prefer core races at the table. If a player really wants to play an exotic race (barring Drow Noble, Svirfneblin or Strix, which are also not allowed), they have 15-pt buy instead of 20.
Alignments
Evil alignments are also not allowed (except when playing an evil campaign, obviously). I want the characters to be team players, not backstabbers.
Feats
The only feat that I consider banning is Leadership (and Torchbearer variant). That being said, that feat could be truly interesting if you're running a campaign for 1, 2 or 3 players. However, in a 4+ character team, I don't think allowing Leadership is very wise, since it slows the game down most of the time.
3PP
3rd party material is only accepted on a case-by-case basis. I think there's far enough material in all the Paizo books without looking elsewhere. That being said, if a player really wants something from a 3pp book and that it makes sense for his character, I'm happy to discuss it with him.
Crafting
I don't have a problem with crafting feats. I usually say at the start of a new campaign whether that campaign will be fit for crafting (lots of downtime) or not. If my players were to abuse the feat to be way above WBL and start slaughtering their opponents effortlessly, I might add templates/class levels to the monsters. Or readuce the number of items they find. Or reduce the amount of downtime. However, it has never become a problem for me so far, so I don't see myself making these adjustments anytime soon.
As a conclusion, my goal when considering whether I should allow or disallow something for my game is to find a common ground that'll make both the players and me happy. In that regard, I think that a very important point is talking with your players before character creation. I could see myself allowing something that I wasn't planning to if the player gives me a very good reason to allow it. Likewise, a player may reconsider his choice if I explain to him why I choose not to allow something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than having a specific list, I think the best is to have a conversation with the players when you're starting the campaign, and have everyone agree on what kind of game you want. This should happen even before the GM sets the tone on what kind of campaign it is, thematically. Heck, this should probably happen even before you decide who's going to be the GM.
Rather than having a specific list, I think the best is to have a conversation with the players when you're starting the campaign, and have everyone agree on what kind of game you want. This should happen even before the GM sets the tone on what kind of campaign it is, thematically. Heck, this should probably happen even before you decide who's going to be the GM.
I don't care if I'm the GM or a player, the summoner and the dhampir are on my blacklist. If someone plays one, I'm out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care if I'm the GM or a player, the summoner and the dhampir are on my blacklist. If someone plays one, I'm out.Rather than having a specific list, I think the best is to have a conversation with the players when you're starting the campaign, and have everyone agree on what kind of game you want. This should happen even before the GM sets the tone on what kind of campaign it is, thematically. Heck, this should probably happen even before you decide who's going to be the GM.
That's a bit...harsh?
Even if the Summoner Player promises to play a buff monkey with a scouting orientated Eidolon and sticks with utility summons?
Even if the Dhampir Player...actually, I have no idea what your problem with Dhampir could be. More of a Team Jacob guy? Don't want to listen to the horrible jokes when the Vampiric guy gets Glitterdust'd? No, really, what's wrong with them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First their drawback of negative energy affinity is either handwaved away or turned into a party problem instead of a pc drawback.
Second I don't like their fluff. They should be undead with all consequences but neither version of how they are created works for me. And then most are inquisitors or paladins of Pharasma, while in my mind they should be kill on sight for any follower of Pharasma. Others hate gunslingers for fluff reasons for me it is dhampirs.
As to a player promising to "play nice": The vanilla summoner is always a "more or less full caster" with a fighter+ or a rogue+ in addition to it. Not even a hunter's pet is as powerful as an eidolon. And to get a totally new pet they have to dismiss their old one and get a new one which can be a problem in RP heavy groups. The summoner just rebuilds his pet every level.
Edit: The summoner is just designed to step on toes and he does it no matter how he's played/build.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a short ban list.
The "Roll with it" goblin feat is perma-banned at all events I run, even in goblin themed games.
About the goliath druid- It has a very different playstyle from normal druids (although I could kinda replicate it with some elementals...maybe).
Since you are turning into a giant (a humanoid), the polymorph rules allow your equipment to scale up with you. That means you can very, very easily use that scimitar proficiency. You can wear armor easily without fiddling or waiting for wild armor.
And since they are large+ humanoids, they have great reach (and some forms have even better reach). That means you can VERY easily pull off a reach build (without he usual problems of reach weapons- I know you could also use reach weapons...although not without finding some proficiencies since druids lack one... but that has large gaps in the squares near you when you get big, so that has problems). Maybe go half orc, and run around with a large/huge great ax or falchion.
And the big thing is regeneration from trolls at level 12. With the option to get fire or acid resist 30 from protection from elements at that level, you can make yourself very hard to kill (not impossible, but hard). But at that level, death is not the biggest thing- risking tpk since you are staggered after falling below 0 hp is a big thing.
Now, normal druids can kinda replicate the style using elementals- bigger elementals tend to have humanoid shapes, and elementals can get simple weapons with that shape (which means they have functioning hands). A bit more troublesome, since your equipment is swallowed up rather than converts with you. That means you need big equipment made for your elemental form, and for you to use that all day (not that bad a prospect- similar reach options, great stat bonuses from earth elementals, a human enough form for most daily taks). That way, you can also use weapons and armor...just with more trouble.
So brushing the those troublesome aspect away, you basically come down to comparing regeneration vs DR, immunities, and earth glide. Slightly better combat use vs a lot of utility.
Oh, and goliaths still actually have a decent enough selection of animal shapes- dinosaurs cover a lot of the basics, such as pouncers, flyers, and more.
I haven't banned anything in my Legacy of Fire game. Because of my campaign world in my homebrew, I did put a ban on gunslingers. Almost. I did say that if you want to play a gunslinger, we'll be using emerging firearms, and I want you to have at least a 16 Intelligence, because you're the one who invented them.
Most game groups have at least an unofficial "do not use" list. In Pathfinder Society, you cannot be a vivisectionist for example. Some of these are thematic: assassins don't fit in a "heroic, open and for the people" style game, at least without a strong justification.
I'm considering the more general options; those archetypes/builds/feats that just stick out as too unwieldy or just too good to allow casually into a game. To me, these options should be heavily justified before being taken and the DM should reserve the right to say "that's enough".
Craft Wondrous Item: just about everything fits into this category and extensive use (in a campaign with any significant downtime) hurt the wealth by level curve. Unlike weapons or armor, there are always more wondrous trinkets you want. The caster/normal divide doesn't need any help.
Invulnerable Rager: I'm less sure of this but the DR combined with high hitpoints seem overpowering.
Leadership: it is functionally a second character. Just a caster performing buffs is major change in power level of the party. Then there is the spotlight problem.
Master Summoner: too many actions in a longer combat for one player, too much tracking, too much headache
...
Non-Unchained Summoner: eidolons were given too much latitude and are too easy to break
....
Slumber Hex: one save, most dangerous monster is done. It makes the game boring
...
Pretty much we got rid of anything but Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll.
Invulnerable Rager: nope, not OP.Leadership: needs to be approved on a case by case basis, with the player and DM agreeing on the cohort.
Master Summoner: Yep, super spotlight hog.
Non-Unchained Summoner: having to triple check the builds gets annoying after a while. It was a bad idea.
Slumber Hex: lots of immunities, have to get close in, usually has to win init. Worked for us in RotRL, but I can see ho win campaigns with lost of Human BBEG and or solo monsters with poor will saves, it could be a game breaker. Why not try it, but tell the player that it can be yanked?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I just play with a group of friends, and never had an issue with overpowered characters. Nothing on my ban list.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
My banned list:
That is hard-core. Banning two of the most iconic classes of D&D, cleric and wizard, seems like it makes the game almost unrecognizable. Do you just cap casting after 6th level spells, mostly telling players to go elsewhere?
1. The name of the game is Pathfinder, not Dungeons and Dragons. So what's iconic for one doesn't really matter to the other.
2. If it really would cause any issue to be "missing out on the iconic classes", rename the fighter to fighting-man, arcanist to magic user, and rogue to thief. Done.
Leadership is a strange feat.
Nowhere does it say that the player designs the NPC, nor does it say that he controls them. These are assumptions that often lead to it just being banned, even though mechanically that isn't how it works.
When we ban it, it's for the same reason we limit the number of summoners (the concept, not the class) or pet-using classes like Hunter or Druid: We simply want combat to be about the characters, NOT all the crap they have following them around.
If Leadership is used properly, with GM and Player sitting down together and DISCUSSING the desired results, it can add a needed role to a group that may have been missing it.
We usually wind up with high AC fighters (because a full caster wanted a good meatshield) or healers (because playing a healer in combat is boring, so having an NPC caster do it doesn't take away from the fun, but does increase survivability). The person who took the feat gets the beneficial, loyal and capable cohort, not a mindless robot that contributes extra actions.
We don't generally allow high DPR cohorts, and this seems to work for us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban most of the 9 level casters. Cleric, Oracle, Druid,, Shaman and Witch all get cut to 6 levels since they have enough other toys to play with to make a decent go of it even without their full casting.That is hard-core. Banning two of the most iconic classes of D&D, cleric and wizard, seems like it makes the game almost unrecognizable. Do you just cap casting after 6th level spells, mostly telling players to go elsewhere?
Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to run in a game with so many restrictions. It seems like banning is a tool for bad GM's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My banned list:
Ditto.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to run in a game with so many restrictions. It seems like banning is a tool for bad GM's.
How does banning classes that are nearly auto-wins make you a bad GM? They just want the available classes to be closer together in power level.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ditto.My banned list:
Oh, come on. Ditto is only NU tier, and while its transformation abilities are a bit annoying in the meta game, it cannot cause any more damage than any other choice in the tier it is used in due to its very nature.
...wait....wrong forum. Wrong RPG, and wrong media. Back to the pokemon debate forums I go.
Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to run in a game with so many restrictions. It seems like banning is a tool for bad GM's.I ban most of the 9 level casters. Cleric, Oracle, Druid,, Shaman and Witch all get cut to 6 levels since they have enough other toys to play with to make a decent go of it even without their full casting.That is hard-core. Banning two of the most iconic classes of D&D, cleric and wizard, seems like it makes the game almost unrecognizable. Do you just cap casting after 6th level spells, mostly telling players to go elsewhere?All two restrictions. I'm such a monster.
Because really, when you get down to it, I have two restrictions. No fighters. No one in my group particularly cares. The fighter sucks anyway. No nine level casters. Casters are either capped at sixth level spells, or in the case of the big arcane casters, removed entirely. Those are my restrictions. Explain to me again how two fairly straightforward restrictions is more restrictions than the bevy of arbitrary ones that other people have listed?
Banning fighters seems odd to me... If someone wants to play a universally recognized 'bad class', why wouldn't you let them? They actually CAN contribute a lot in the right group, they just don't have the toolbox that casters get...
I don't disagree with your ideas about casters, but if I tried that at my table, I would likely not survive the night, as the people I play with tend to stick to the stereotypical party design (wizard/cleric/fighter/rogue), and that would remove half the party options. Kudos to you for having the cojones to try and balance the game though, you have my support.