Personally I just play with a group of friends, and never had an issue with overpowered characters. Nothing on my ban list.
I have the same party mostly. A few give me fits just to mess with me, but for the most part it's smooth sailing.
(BTW, love the name! Malazan? Friend just got me hooked on the series recently)
So far our GM's main thing is we're limited to the core books that he actually owns. (Loaning isn't an option, as we play online due to the minor issue of being in three separate time zones.) When Unchained came out, he liked the rogue revamp as well as killing the rage cycle mechanic, so uRogue and uBarbarian were built. (So far my 'Invulnerable' Rager isn't really proving herself that way, but I blame user error.)
One other issue is that for almost all of us it's our first Pathfinder campaign, so in some cases we've yet to learn most of the game-breaking things, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh.
Good point about level dipping I guess. I've been tempted to ban multiclassing because of one friend of mine who's saves are always stupid high due to this...
Your banning would not affect me at all. I have decided I will play nothing but Hunters till the day I die.
:D
I actually allow Sacred Geometry. Only one person has taken it so far. He has from the time his turn ends until the time his next turn starts to plan his spell, pick his metamagic, do his math, and have it written down so that I can check the math and give it the nod on his turn. If he's not ready, or the math is wrong, the spell fizzles. And he's not allowed to use the Sacred Geometry app on Android either.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?I don't see how it's bad GMing to ban things that are obviously terrible ideas, like Sacred Geometry, where you can get metamagic on your spells FOR FREE if you do some time-consuming math jiggery-pokery that does become basically impossible to fail after a while.
Or dazing spell, better known as "OK, guys, my fireball just stun-locked that dragon the GM spent all week setting up an awesome fight for for the next three rounds, beat the crap out of it."
Sometimes it's just a thematic thing. If you want to run a low-magic setting, wizards, clerics, and druids have no place in it.
Other people prune the spell lists available so they don't constantly run into "I can immediately and effortlessly resolve this scenario with a single spell," which comes up way more often than anyone trying to make a compelling story should have to constantly plan around.
Nice use of timing. I have a player who likes casters, but doesn't even know her own spell list. She always waits until her turn before even LOOKING at what options she has... it's infuriating.
I want to implement an egg timer or something... each round takes fifteen minutes, 12 of those are just for her.
I ban fighters to prevent level dipping for free feats. No one actually wants to play a fighter, after all.
Stereotypical party design, when phrased somewhat differently, still works without full casters. Magical Support, Magical Combatant, Physical Combatant, Skilled Character, is a solid party. And, in my games there tends to be a lot more overlap and less spotlight hogging. Pretty much every class that I allow, other than the purely martial classes can fill any of the roles to a greater or lesser degree. It makes life a bit more interesting for everybody, especially out of combat, since it tends to spread skills around more, meaning that it's not Jim the Rogue making all the skill checks for the whole party.
I like fighters myself. I can work with them fairly well. I can proudly make an eldritch guardian taht can stun lock the wizard that the GM spent all week preparing. And still end up with enough skill points to be useful. Or how about the brawler (archetype, not class) that can lock down enemies and smack that wizard so he can't do anything? And even with the bum will save, I can make even caster clerics jealous with the right bit of investment.
Overall, it requires rather intense system mastery, and you generally want an archetype or two. But it can work out.
But I can readily acknowledge a limit on multiclassing. While sometimes it can be cool, my experience on these boards (which are admittedly not very indicative) tells me that most people just dip things when they want broken combos. Like barbarians dipping oracle so they can rage cycle. Or how every blaster wizard is also a sorcerer with blood from both dragons and orcs.
Pathfinder generally tried to make most classes function without the need for that kind of multiclassing.
I ban fighters to prevent level dipping for free feats. No one actually wants to play a fighter, after all.
Stereotypical party design, when phrased somewhat differently, still works without full casters. Magical Support, Magical Combatant, Physical Combatant, Skilled Character, is a solid party. And, in my games there tends to be a lot more overlap and less spotlight hogging. Pretty much every class that I allow, other than the purely martial classes can fill any of the roles to a greater or lesser degree. It makes life a bit more interesting for everybody, especially out of combat, since it tends to spread skills around more, meaning that it's not Jim the Rogue making all the skill checks for the whole party.
I like fighters myself. I can work with them fairly well. I can proudly make an eldritch guardian taht can stun lock the wizard that the GM spent all week preparing. And still end up with enough skill points to be useful. Or how about the brawler (archetype, not class) that can lock down enemies and smack that wizard so he can't do anything? And even with the bum will save, I can make even caster clerics jealous with the right bit of investment.
Overall, it requires rather intense system mastery, and you generally want an archetype or two. But it can work out.
But I can readily acknowledge a limit on multiclassing. While sometimes it can be cool, my experience on these boards (which are admittedly not very indicative) tells me that most people just dip things when they want broken combos. Like barbarians dipping oracle so they can rage cycle. Or how every blaster wizard is also a sorcerer with blood from both dragons and orcs.
Pathfinder generally tried to make most classes function without the need for that kind of multiclassing.
LOL the basic 'foot troop' in my last campaign (went to level 20/mythic 10) were usually accompanied by Half Orc sorcerers with draconic and orc blood... of course, they were basically a terrorist group within the orc kingdom led by a Blue Dragon, so at least I tried to make it work within the story... :D
I actually allow Sacred Geometry. Only one person has taken it so far. He has from the time his turn ends until the time his next turn starts to plan his spell, pick his metamagic, do his math, and have it written down so that I can check the math and give it the nod on his turn. If he's not ready, or the math is wrong, the spell fizzles. And he's not allowed to use the Sacred Geometry app on Android either.
Nice use of timing. I have a player who likes casters, but doesn't even know her own spell list. She always waits until her turn before even LOOKING at what options she has... it's infuriating.
I want to implement an egg timer or something... each round takes fifteen minutes, 12 of those are just for her.
One minute is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to choose and perform your actions. If you, as a player, take more than about a minute to run your turn, your character is clearly overwhelmed by everything going on around you, and unable to take an effective action this turn. Next player.
One suggestion for overwhelmed casters is to put their spells prepared on index cards, one for each spell, and lay them out in front of them. Include all the relevant information, including the spell's DC if relevant on the card, along with the effects. It makes it easier to look over what you have available, and makes tracking spells used easier. Once the spell is cast, it goes into a pile, face down.
Yep, great idea. I've suggested it. Unless I make them for her, it's not happening. Some players are just slower than others. I'm a player in her husbands campaign now, so I've just started helping her decide, it's getting better. :D
It's difficult for me to ban anything. Spotlight-stealing characters don't tend to really be a huge with my group, as it is very close-knit and tends to focus on the roleplay more than combat as far as 'memorable characters'. Hell, I generally go along with whatever whacky idea they have. I allowed, in my Mummy's Mask (recently abandoned due to scheduling conflicts) campaign, a gnoll brawler and a mermaid witch with a single level in barbarian for mobility's sakes (lovingly nicknamed the "Hammerwitch). The thought of a hammer-totting, spell-slinging amphibious lady slithering along the desert just tickled the group's funny bone. In the end, the fun's what matters to us.
They're also generally very good about self-regulating. We had a summoner who just wrecked everything with a bite-grab combo. The player eventually became self-conscious and stepped away from the character for a different one. I trust them to know what they find fun.
With ALL of that said, the only thing my group seems to universally despise or resent are pistoleros, and I can understand why. When at level 10 you can deal 200+ damage on a full round attack and leaves no one with any chance to do anything, some restrictions should apply. Even then, the pistolero is not banned, just strongly frowned upon. Unfortunate as the one who made it infamous among us likes gunslingers primarily. He probably wouldn't have been as spotlight stealing also if he weren't so damn memorable personality-wise. He was a Galtan who was slightly insane due to being stuck in a barrel adrift at sea who was overly talkative.
We basically had French Deadpool.
It's difficult for me to ban anything. Spotlight-stealing characters don't tend to really be a huge with my group, as it is very close-knit and tends to focus on the roleplay more than combat as far as 'memorable characters'. Hell, I generally go along with whatever whacky idea they have. I allowed, in my Mummy's Mask (recently abandoned due to scheduling conflicts) campaign, a gnoll brawler and a mermaid witch with a single level in barbarian for mobility's sakes (lovingly nicknamed the "Hammerwitch). The thought of a hammer-totting, spell-slinging amphibious lady slithering along the desert just tickled the group's funny bone. In the end, the fun's what matters to us.
They're also generally very good about self-regulating. We had a summoner who just wrecked everything with a bite-grab combo. The player eventually became self-conscious and stepped away from the character for a different one. I trust them to know what they find fun.
With ALL of that said, the only thing my group seems to universally despise or resent are pistoleros, and I can understand why. When at level 10 you can deal 200+ damage on a full round attack and leaves no one with any chance to do anything, some restrictions should apply. Even then, the pistolero is not banned, just strongly frowned upon. Unfortunate as the one who made it infamous among us likes gunslingers primarily. He probably wouldn't have been as spotlight stealing also if he weren't so damn memorable personality-wise. He was a Galtan who was slightly insane due to being stuck in a barrel adrift at sea who was overly talkative.
We basically had French Deadpool.
Interesting, no one in my gaming group has even CONSIDERED playing a gunslinger. No one has banned them, no one has played them...
*shrugs*
They have just been totally ignored.
Can't say I blame them for it. 'Slingers tend to be the redheaded stepchildren. They use unconventional weapons, have unconventional rules, and even more than fighters they are reliant on their weapons of choice. Even more so, they are the class that can be absolutely screwed over by DMs easily, as they can choose to make guns rarer than an underwater campfire, completely screwing the gunslinger should he ever lose his weapon permanently. Their full BAB coupled with their attacks hitting touch AC within a certain range make them unbelievably easy to hit with, and coupled with deeds, Dex added to damage, AND the x4 crit damage almost all guns have? This isn't even considering the pistolero's "Up Close And Deadly" which gives them precision damage which, due to what I can assume was not intended considering the name, has no maximum or minimum range. This means a pistolero with two guns and the appropriate feats can unload 5+ attacks on a single round, each one dealing precision damage and each one having a 10% chance to crit for 4x the usual amount.
Our fights did not last long against anything that was not incorporeal.
Can't say I blame them for it. 'Slingers tend to be the redheaded stepchildren. They use unconventional weapons, have unconventional rules, and even more than fighters they are reliant on their weapons of choice. Even more so, they are the class that can be absolutely screwed over by DMs easily, as they can choose to make guns rarer than an underwater campfire, completely screwing the gunslinger should he ever lose his weapon permanently. Their full BAB coupled with their attacks hitting touch AC within a certain range make them unbelievably easy to hit with, and coupled with deeds, Dex added to damage, AND the x4 crit damage almost all guns have? This isn't even considering the pistolero's "Up Close And Deadly" which gives them precision damage which, due to what I can assume was not intended considering the name, has no maximum or minimum range. This means a pistolero with two guns and the appropriate feats can unload 5+ attacks on a single round, each one dealing precision damage and each one having a 10% chance to crit for 4x the usual amount.
Our fights did not last long against anything that was not incorporeal.
Honestly, I think it's the apparent massive cost per shot that scares them off... Any character with cost-per-shot seems to be avoided at my table.
Depending on the current availability of firearms, making new bullets could cost a lot less than you think. You aren't wrong, though. Kicking that much ass requires a lot of gold. I think they're the most wealth- and equipment-dependent class in the game. If they are built right, though, they likely won't need much more than bullets and their guns.
Depending on the current availability of firearms, making new bullets could cost a lot less than you think. You aren't wrong, though. Kicking that much ass requires a lot of gold. I think they're the most wealth- and equipment-dependent class in the game. If they are built right, though, they likely won't need much more than bullets and their guns.
I would really like to play a gunslinger, but only if I have access to revolvers.
I wanna play Roland.
Damn you, Stephen King.
Yeah, revolvers are one of the advanced firearms. You'll need to get permission from your DM for that. That said, some settings like Alkenstar or even Numeria may have easier access, or you can have a friend in the black market that you have to protect in order to keep your supply of advanced weapons and ammunition coming in at an affordable price. All of this is, of course, going to have to be worked out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, revolvers are one of the advanced firearms. You'll need to get permission from your DM for that. That said, some settings like Alkenstar or even Numeria may have easier access, or you can have a friend in the black market that you have to protect in order to keep your supply of advanced weapons and ammunition coming in at an affordable price. All of this is, of course, going to have to be worked out.
Yep... but damn how cool would it be?
We had a campaign where one of the characters was an Aristocrat NPC class to start, but he owned a 9mm handgun with a full clip. He was the American President, transported into the d20 universe.
Totally hilarious.
He gained levels as a Bard, and still had a couple of rounds left in his faithful pistol at the end of the campaign.
Guns can be fantastic, but should be tightly controlled.
One of my guys decided to play a preacher who worshipped God. Actual God, mind you. Me, being completely nuts, decided to let it happen, and we said that God was actually the shadow of Ihys - all that remained of him - and that Earth was actually a secret project he'd kept hidden from the rest of the gods and that his lingering remnant protected from their direct influence (though iconography still slipped in through dreams, etc.). His character was a warpriest that had a Bible and was transported to Golarion somehow. His spellcasting didn't come from Ihys but from his powerful faith. He gunned down enemies while quoting scripture, Boondock Saints style. It was pretty badass. I awarded him a hero point when he did.
Yeah, I don't know how to say no...
One of my guys decided to play a preacher who worshipped God. Actual God, mind you. Me, being completely nuts, decided to let it happen, and we said that God was actually the shadow of Ihys - all that remained of him - and that Earth was actually a secret project he'd kept hidden from the rest of the gods and that his lingering remnant protected from their direct influence (though iconography still slipped in through dreams, etc.). His character was a warpriest that had a Bible and was transported to Golarion somehow. His spellcasting didn't come from Ihys but from his powerful faith. He gunned down enemies while quoting scripture, Boondock Saints style. It was pretty badass. I awarded him a hero point when he did.
Yeah, I don't know how to say no...
I've had similar characters, it's hilarious as a non-christian to play a christian character in a polytheistic game.
Made funnier by the fact that no one knew whether to take his religion seriously or not. No one knew what Jesus was, but he got those spells somehow. They also didn't understand the strange gibberish on that onion-leaf black book ("And why black? Is it an evil god?" "Depends on who you ask."). Everyone just decided to not question it and just accept it. He killed things good.
Made funnier by the fact that no one knew whether to take his religion seriously or not. No one knew what Jesus was, but he got those spells somehow. They also didn't understand the strange gibberish on that onion-leaf black book ("And why black? Is it an evil god?" "Depends on who you ask."). Everyone just decided to not question it and just accept it. He killed things good.
I think you and I would be very good friends IRL. :D
Huh.
Good point about level dipping I guess. I've been tempted to ban multiclassing because of one friend of mine who's saves are always stupid high due to this...
Your banning would not affect me at all. I have decided I will play nothing but Hunters till the day I die.
:D
Save stacking becomes a non-issue if you use fractional BAB and Saves. It stops some multiclasses from having terrible effects from the numbers, while others don't get screwy in the way your friend is abusing.
Unchained made it an official variant rule instead of a houserule, but the concept has been around for a while.
We have a "you better have a really good RP reason to try and play with X" list. Most of my gaming group DM's as well as plays so we tend to discuss and mostly agree on all of the following:
Summoner (game balance reasons)
Leadership (at the loosest interpretation where the player effectively makes and controls a 2nd character this is outright banned. We have allowed it for a three PC party game where one of the charters developed a relationship with a pre-written NPC. Shalelu in RotRL)
Gunslinger (Thematic reasons, we have never had one in a game)
Furious Focus (group decision, power attack should have a drawback)
Non-consumable crafting feats (We decided that they felt like a necessary feat tax for the group caster and resolved to hand out more loot instead and let casters take something more interesting)
Alchemist (one DM doesn't feel they are balanced correctly, although a good character concept will likely get this class past muster with the rest of us. Multi-class dipping for a level or two is frowned upon)
Some other things that were discussed:
Opposing alignment characters:
We normally just set out at the beginning of the campaign whether the party is going to be heroic, evil or mercenary. The party needs a reason to stay together that isn't a metagame reason.
Eastern Weapons:
We never really discussed banning them, but they are rare and not generally available.
Sleep Hex:
This caused a big debate, but we eventually decided to put the onus on the DM to design around it. We came to the conclusion that early level Witches suffer to much without it. So now most encounters get more minions and more mobs where it's effectiveness is limited and someone can wake up the sleeping BBEG. We made it a spell like effect though, so it provokes, needs to get past SR and can be interrupted.
We also amended Coup De Gras so they don't force a Fort save or die. Specifically after players started delaying their turn next to the Witches next slumber target.
In my opinion these changes have improved encounters in general.
Also, the DM added a 2nd level Witch to the last fight of Ch1 Kingmaker (He laughed a lot at our reactions). The Witch ended up sleeping most of the party at some point in the fight... Karma?
There is a saying amongst our group that if you can find a way to break the game so can the DM, and it's generally easier for him/her. This keeps most things in check.
I don't generally ban stuff outright as much as I discourage things for thematic purposes. "X won't fit this campaign well, so let me suggest something else..." More like that.
Only things I've banned in my current game:
Vanilla Summoner - Unchained is still allowed. Master Summoner is out entirely. I do this not because it's overpowered. It just has the largest chance for players to screw it up entirely.
Ninja/Samurai - Unless a player makes a super compelling reason that one of these are running around, they're not in my game. They're on a continent way across the ocean.
Vanilla Rogue - It's terrible. I force my players to use the unchained version for their own good.
Everything else is fair game. All the arguments I'm seeing about "X is overpowered" is just silly. If you see a character is outshining the rest of the group, pull your player aside and ask him to scale it back a little. If your group is constantly making a mockery of your carefully planned encounters, maybe it's time to go back to encounter building 101.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This goes back to my earlier point. Rather than just giving players a banned list, it's best to have a discussion about expectations among everyone when you start the campaign. We're all adults. We can discuss things maturely and agree on stuff, rather than having arbitrary GM declarations.
My banned list:
Even 3pp? Even 3.5? Even a class I wrote myself?
Huh.
Good point about level dipping I guess. I've been tempted to ban multiclassing because of one friend of mine who's saves are always stupid high due to this...
But since he doesn't play casters, I'd guess, does it really matter? And even so, I have seen multiclassers with stupid LOW Will saves.
I ban fighters to prevent level dipping for free feats. No one actually wants to play a fighter, after all.
Perhaps in your group, my experience is the opposite- it's a rather popular class.
Even 3pp? Even 3.5? Even a class I wrote myself?
EH! I'd forgotten about 3pp stuff. I don't really consider 3.5 to be part of Pathfinder so I wouldn't call it banned. However, it's less of a ban and more of a filter. My players can use 3pp stuff so long as they a) bring it to my attention first and b) make a compelling argument to use it.
Player-made classes are also not banned, as my players are quite good at building them and usually have a core concept to work with. I'm not hard to convince.
However, I have permanently disallowed new race creation. It's not even an issue of mechanics. The world is already chock full of unique and interesting races. An inability to be satisfied with any of them shows a lack of imagination, and creating a half-baked race to fill your picky niche is distasteful in my eyes. I also don't allow it because unlike classes (which honestly someone could just be the first of their class at any point), a race must have a place in history. If any of my players create a custom race, they must have a written history right down to its inception. They must have an identity. Then and only then with my approval will I allow it, and even then they have to fit the theme of the campaign.
I mostly say this because on two accounts I've had to deal with super min-maxed races. One was a panda person (on a game I didn't DM) Zen Archer, the other was a tiny fox fey creature (regrettably, on the first game I ever DMed) who was a wizard with a +4 to Int, though from how she was played you'd be certain it was a minus instead.
*huuuuuuueeegh*
Well, I have enough trust in my current players that if they do want to create a custom race, they'll do it phenomenally. So far, though, I'm proud to say they haven't had the need to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even 3pp? Even 3.5? Even a class I wrote myself?My banned list:
Can't speak for Scythia, but since I gave the same answer:
A lot of third-party stuff is better balanced than Paizo content, so I don't really care. My only request is that you show it to me first so I know what I'm dealing with. If necessary, I'm even willing to modify my setting to make things fit. I created a small continent for the purpose of including psionics, for example.
My first group's first d20 game was Pathfinder, so 3.5 has never come up. My other group's GM did play 3.5 and basically allows everything. Hasn't been much of a problem for him, so I'd probably be fine with it.
If the other players would learn the system well enough to try making their own class, I'd be thrilled.
EDIT: Actually, I lied. I do ban Sacred Geometry because once you hit 14 ranks in Knowledge (engineering) or whatever it was, you have a 100% chance of getting a winning combination.
I was reading this thread thinking "Well, I wouldn't outright ban anything..." and then someone mentioned Sacred Geometry and I went "NEVER MIND." (I'm pretty sure I'm dyscalculic. I need a calculator to keep up with the ORDINARY math in game. No way I could track that.)
But I generally play with the same (if revolving) group of people whom I trust not to try to deliberately break things. We don't really have min-maxers in our parties since we're very character/story based. So I'll be pretty open with what I let people do as long as they can justify it and it won't ruin others' enjoyment (nothing has come up so far that has). To be honest, I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with people who want to make THE. MOST. POWERFUL. character at the expense of all else. Just different styles, I suppose.
I'll discourage things for flavor occasionally, but if the player has a good explanation for something, I'll generally be willing to go with it. As far as 3pp stuff, I'll usually allow it, but I have to take a look at it first so I know what it does.
LOL the basic 'foot troop' in my last campaign (went to level 20/mythic 10) were usually accompanied by Half Orc sorcerers with draconic and orc blood... of course, they were basically a...
Yeah...you worked it into the story, and as enemies, it is as valid a tactic as templates. But that is just it- just like with templates, monsters can be all sorts of crazy things, but it gets silly when you also try to make them into playable characters.
The half dragon/half celestial/half elf wizard being the obvious joke. Any one of those elements added onto a more human-ish character makes something interesing (a wizard decended from dragons, a wizard that has angelic blood; also a half celestial dragon is fine), but putting it all together gets silly.
And you used sorcerers through and through- when you use all that silliness as a DIP to simply boost your main class...then any pretense that it can be compelling story-wise kinda goes out the window. Just like how so many barbarians appearantly got divine powers after a leg injury....
I ban wands in my games. Makes having hit points much more interesting.
..or forces someone to be the heal bot. I like the idea of giving everyone the middle finger and just playing a cleric of asmodeus with points in UMD. It says "I am going to be using these spell slots for something other than cure spells"
And you used sorcerers through and through- when you use all that silliness as a DIP to simply boost your main class...then any pretense that it can be compelling story-wise kinda goes out the window. Just like how so many barbarians appearantly got divine powers after a leg injury....
Come on, isn't it a refreshing change to have a group of characters that became adventurers after they took an arrow to the knee?
And you used sorcerers through and through- when you use all that silliness as a DIP to simply boost your main class...then any pretense that it can be compelling story-wise kinda goes out the window. Just like how so many barbarians appearantly got divine powers after a leg injury....Come on, isn't it a refreshing change to have a group of characters that became adventurers after they took an arrow to the knee?
I suppose... except the number of barbarians with a limp leg could fill entire mercenary companies. To the point that you have to imagine it must be some right of passage or something.
I am not saying that characters shouldn't take a night class or two in another major...it just should generally be for rounding themselves out rather than the same min maxing over and over again.
Self regulating is important, after all if a player is trying to be annoying no ban list will stop them. But isn't walking away from a character disruptive itself? I want players to be able to play through a campaign with one character so we have story continuity.
Yes, and that was a problem I encountered. Eventually I had to restrain them for future campaigns. However, the campaign in question -was- Kingmaker, meaning that between modules, characters could be swapped out. Unlike most KMs, our heroes weren't the rulers. It just didn't make sense for the leaders to do the dirty work after the founding, so we had a "Special Task Group" that worked directly for them as problem solvers. This allowed membership to wax and wane as proper. Eventually, they found a good combination everyone was satisfied with, and those are the current legendary heroes that are saving the kingdom from war and other threats.
Fun is also relative. The character who is tearing it up might have had a lot of fun, even if the other players were annoyed. Now the player has to walk away from something fun for the sake of others. This list is about avoiding that conversation up front.
Our pistolero didn't walk away because he was too iconic. The other, much less effective slinger did, though. My character was more about battlefield control (gas-focused alchemist) and was nigh unkillable, so that was my niche. The RP was also very satisfying and tended to overshadow the ease of combat.
To be fair, though? Pistolero was CONSTANTLY broke because he had to pay for more bullets.
I was running Skull and Shackles where the would-be captain was a pistolero. He easily put out the most damage and was the most annoyed with the game: Underwater he was useless, early levels the constant rain was problematic, and enemies would key in on him when he let them have it leading to the most deaths in the campaign. I didn't modify any encounters specifically for him but when the enemy see you one-shot one of their number they either charge you or run. The player toughed it out and eventually understood how drawing agro worked against him and played down his abilities. In retrospect, I should have said no pistolero and/or no double barreled pistols.
Funny story, the campaign with our pistolero was ALSO S&S. He had revolvers, though, so rain didn't hurt him (our DM to this day regrets that decision immensely). Underwater was a pain for everyone, but that's no surprise. He did enough damage that nothing got close enough to him, and I made sure of it. No one wants to wade through a stink cloud filled with disease even if it means getting to the bastard currently killing everyone.
I approve. How do you say chimichanga in french?
Even better. He shouted "POP CULTURE REFERENCE!" and "BANG BANG BANG!"
I banned Leadership because the player in question wanted to abuse it. Not only to gain more spotlight and more power, but also as helper to enforce his kind of quite aggressive RP.
The same player wanted to focus on item creation - I said 'no' because I got the impression it was about taking total control over the item distribution. In the campaign there is no real downtime anyway.
Sometimes it's not just the GM, it's also a player...
PS: The same player profits as much from houserules as everyone else. He is the only one who can do two Cleaves per round at level 6, I allowed him to melee attack a flying creature which was technically slightly out of range and he will get a nice reward soon, tailored to cover one of his weaknesses. I try to be fair, even if I sometimes enjoy the idea of his character being eaten by a dragon or something like that...
Guns are currently banned at my table while I revisit my homebrew on the matter. I actually like guns in Fantasy and would like to do another campaign where they feature heavily, I just really, really dislike the Pathfinder rules for them. I want guns that are cheap, easy to use, reliable in normal weather conditions, and highly inaccurate. Pathfinder rules do exactly the opposite of what I want.
Moving on to something that hasn't gotten many mentions, I ban the Teleportion focused school for Wizards. I've always felt Conjurers got a better deal than the other wizard specialties in the CRB (and Wizards overall get a pretty slick deal...), and letting them trade out their only bad class feature for one of the strongest class features in the game is just utter overkill.
Banned for balance/gameplay reasons:
Summoners of any kind
Clustered Shots (thinking of unbanning this one, we'll see)
Anything 3PP
Stuff from Paizo but not part of the main line needs my approval
Banned for theme/setting reasons:
Gunslingers
Summoners of any kind
Non-CRB races
Druids (Well, mostly strongly discouraged by me. Also a player test class.)
Leadership
Crafting feats
Things I'm using from Unchained:
Unchained rogue & monk (regular versions still available)
Signature skill feat available
Alternate multiclassing
Poison & disease
Customized version of ABP rules
Before the ACG started playtest my banlist was: anything not on the prd*, mythic adventures, gmg, UCam (except for traits)
*certain sections of some books are default=no, make your case. Like advanced firearms, race builder, downtime, alternate rules, etc
But ever since ACG it's been a whirlwind of new information, and now major revisions to pre-existing books, that I can't process it all. the ACG, Occult Adventures, Unchained, the extensive revisions masked as errata. I'm just so overwhelmed I get burned out even trying to catch up.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer: It's players, not abilities, that cause issues. You can mandate "CRB only" and still have PCs who are wildly disparate in abilities/effectiveness due to class/build/feat choices. As a GM, it's your job to set expectations early, and follow through. This is MUCH easier in a home game. It's perfectly fine to ask to pre-approve every PC that comes across your table, and to "just say 'No'" to builds you don't like, with a clear explanation as to why you have an issue with it. Any player who comes to my table with an attitude of, "This is the PC I'm going to play, and if you won't allow it I'll walk" is free to go. I run 3 games with a total of 11 different players, with 3 more who have requested to join the moment there's an opening at any table. And I just received a request to run a 4th game with another 4 players (plus 2 overlaps).
In my experience, players are plentiful. GMs aren't. If someone tells me, "This is how it's going to be or I'll walk," I'll happily help them out the door.
Long answer: Two of my players are long-time D&D players who think they're "experts", but they're terrible. My longstanding rule was, "If it's in the PRD, it's OK with me." I don't want to ponder how many times I had to tell the two of them, "d20pfsrd is NOT the PRD!!!" They whine, and moan, and talk about how much I'm crushing their roleplaying hopes and dreams... and then they suck, and they whine, and, worst of all, AT THE TABLE DURING COMBAT they ask me to look up their abilities, because they don't understand them.
So unforgiveable sin #1: Taking feats or abilities and then asking the GM to look them up during the game. My new rule for those guys is, "The first time you interrupt me during the game to ask about a non-PRD ability you took, you have to roll up a new PC. On the spot. I will NOT accept such interruptions."
Suddenly, they're sticking to the PRD.
Unforgivable sin #2: Optimizing to the point that you can single-handedly annihilate CR-appropriate encounters in a single round.
Fortunately, my players either don't care to, or aren't capable of doing this. If they were, I would let them. But I would not adjust the encounters for them. I run APs because I work 40 hours a week, raise 2 kids, and run 3 games. I don't have time to generate custom encounters based on optimized PCs, and even if I did, the same issue would arise: Every single fight, the non-optimizers would sit around doing nothing as the optimizer killed everything.
So, we would have 3 or 4 pathetically one-sided fights. All the other players would get immensely bored. And either the campaign would die or the optimizer would choose to roll up a less efficient killing machine PC. This won't work at PFS tables, but for home games it seems a reasonable solution.
------------------------------------
I like banning for flavor: If you don't want a world with guns, ban gunslingers. I don't like banning for "super feats" because I've seen them played very, very well, and not abused.
I'd rather consider the PC as a whole, in the context of the player I know, rather than create an arbitrary list of what I don't like.
EDIT: Quick example: In my 3-player roleplay-heavy group, I'd be perfectly happy if one of them took leadership so I didn't have to run a GMNPC. In my 7-player "problem" group, one player asked for Leadership and I out-and-out banned it because I knew he wouldn't be able to manage it, and because it's unfair to add any more nonsense to an already-crowded table.
Same feat. Same GM. Different players, different table, different outcome.
|
I run with an approved list, which is everything I've already read and know the rules for. If you want to use something else, show it to me, so I can read it and know the rules for how it operates before you start using it in my game. I don't want to have to stop the game to look up rules because a player pulled out something I've never heard of before.
I allow only 1st-party stuff.
I ban Crafting/Profession/Downtime, for no other reason than that I subjectively don't like to run those systems in my games.
I ban selling mundane gear for similar reasons, but also because the players' loot lists end up too bloated when they're stripping down every guard to his skivvies for his scale armor and short sword, and they end up forgetting about the actually useful items that they have. If they don't need it, they don't pick it up. et voila.
I ban Leadership when I have 4+ players. At 6+ players, I also ban animal companions, summoned creatures, and familiars from taking part in combat. It seems harsh, I know, but in a big party it cuts down on chaos on and around the table, and on turn length. This keeps people from playing their turn and then checking out on their phones while the summoner makes full attacks with his 1d4 eagles. Players are aware of these restrictions ahead of time, of course, so they can just pick classes that don't rely on extra creatures to win their fights.
I don't outright ban multiclassing, but I reserve the right to disallow multiclassing except for story purposes. If you're going to multiclass into ninja from cleric, you'd better have found somewhere to train those skills. I have found that a character picking a new class out of nowhere typically indicates that the player's attention is on optimization rather than on who the character is.
Also, I don't like to run for gunslingers, but I houserule the way guns work, and everything is fine.
|
|
On the subject of summoners:
My favorite pfs character right now is an old school summoner whose eidolon at 6th level has a 12 int is a scout and skill monkey who my summoner banishes the first round of combat (why would I want my dearest friend to be in danger, she is a guest on this plane) and relys only on monster summons and buffs.
And this character is why I HATE the unchained summoner. Because making a non dpr monster is discouraged in the original class and is nearly impossible in the unchained class.
That said, I get the issues with the original class as well as the very poorly balanced archetypes. So I wouldn't bann the class other than with beginner players. But I would want to know what you were shooting for.